Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT

For Galloway, in the room of John Hamilton Mackie, esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Heath.]

COTTON INDUSTRY (PETITION)

Mr. Proctor: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to present a Petition signed by 7,166 residents of the Borough of Swinton and Pendlebury. The Petition calls attention to the fact that the nation at the end of the Second World War appealed to the cotton industry to increase its production and especially its exports and thus to assist the nation in its hour of economic travail. The industry responded wholeheartedly and the textile workers accepted an assurance that their future would be saved. Unfortunately, widespread depression has taken place in the textile industry mainly due to the vastly increased imports of textiles from overseas produced under unfair competitive conditions.
The Petition states that many textile workers in the area of Swinton and Pendlebury are already unemployed and that many men and women most industrious and highly skilled in the industry are now facing the tragedy of unemployment.
Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that this House will take action without delay to limit the import of cheap textiles and will devote itself to save the cotton towns of Lancashire from becoming derelict by taking vigorous and effective action to revive the cotton industry.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — RENT ACT, 1957 (COURT HEARINGS)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Attorney-General how many persons in Slough have been given notice of three months or less to quit their accommodation, following court hearings under the Rent Act.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I assume that the hon. Member has in mind orders for the possession of premises which have been decontrolled by virtue of the Rent Act, 1957. An order for possession in three months or less was made in 8 of the 13 cases heard by the Slough County Court in the period ending 31st January, 1959. It is not possible to say whether any of those orders affected houses in Slough, as the jurisdiction of the court extends to other areas and separate statistics are not maintained.

Mr. Brockway: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for those particulars. Do not the figures show that, despite the amending Act, the Rent Act is causing very considerable hardship? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that five evictions are threatened this month in Slough and that, were it not for the fact that the borough council is providing alternative accommodation, men and women would be on the streets as a result of the Government's Rent Act?

The Attorney-General: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. The eight cases to which I referred, which were heard by the Slough County Court, may not all have come from Slough, because the area of jurisdiction of that court includes Maidenhead, Windsor, New Windsor, Eton, Egham, Staines and other areas. I do not think those figures justify the conclusion reached by the hon. Gentleman.

Mrs. Butler: asked the Attorney-General the number of applications made for possession by landlords under the Rent Act, 1957, and the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1958, to Edmonton County Court at the latest convenient date, and the decision reached by the court in each such case.

The Attorney-General: By 1st January, 1959, 122 actions for possession under the Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1958, had been entered and 41 of them had been heard. In 28 of those cases the tenant applied for a suspension of the court's order for possession and the application was granted in 21 cases. No figures are available in respect of actions for possession under the Rent Acts.

Mrs. Butler: Is the Attorney-General aware that, in December, Judge Duveen said to a tenant,
If you take an order for possession along to the council, they'll have to help you,
and that, in January, Judge Granville Smith, at Edmonton County Court, advised a tenant, "in her own interest", to
go to the council with the court order and ask for accommodation"?
In view of the fact that the Tottenham Borough Council is now considering twenty-six applications from families against whom orders for possession have been made and has a housing waiting list of between 9,000 and 10,000 families, do the Government intend that the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1958, should work out in this way so that hard-pressed local authorities like Tottenham are forced to choose between desperate Rent Act victims and people on their own waiting lists?

The Attorney-General: That speech does not seem to call for a reply from me.

Oral Answers to Questions — HIGHWAYS (LAW OF CIVIL LIABILITY)

Mr. Ronald Bell: asked the Attorney-General when the Lord Chancellor's Law Reform Committee is expected to begin consideration of the law of civil liability in respect of highways, particularly in regard to liability for non-feasance.

The Attorney-General: The Law Reform Committee has not been invited to consider this matter. The question of liability for non-feasance is at present the subject of discussions between my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation and the highway authorities' associations.

Mr. Bell: Can my right hon. and learned Friend offer any hope that, as a result of these conversations, there will be a fairly early amendment of the law? If not, will he ask his noble Friend the Lord Chancellor to submit this matter of non-feasance to the Law Reform Committee, as this is a subject which has, by common consent, been awaiting reform for a very long time?

The Attorney-General: The right moment to consider all that is when the Highways Bill, now before Parliament—it is almost entirely a consolidation Measure—has been enacted.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEGAL AID SCHEME

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Attorney-General if he is aware of the hardship resulting, in the administration of the Legal Aid Scheme, from the existing regulations as to contributions; and what action he proposes to take to remedy this matter.

The Attorney-General: In its comments and recommendations upon the Eighth Report of the Law Society on the Legal Aid Scheme, which has been laid before Parliament today, the Advisory Committee states that it proposes to study further in the course of this year whether under present financial conditions the machinery set up by the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949, is failing to make legal aid and advice available to those for whom it was intended. My noble Friend, the Lord Chancellor, will consider the question of amending not only the Legal Aid (Assessment of Resources) Regulations, 1950, but also the financial provisions of the Legal Aid and Advice Act in the light of its recommendations.

Mr. Fletcher: While it is satisfactory to know that the Lord Chancellor will consider the matter, may I ask whether the Attorney-General will bear in mind that, in view of the recent debate in this House when he promised that representations made from both sides of the House would be conveyed to the Lord Chancellor, we hope for speedy action?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Employment Exchange, Kirkby

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Minister of Works what changes he proposes to make in the architects' department of his


Department to enable it to draw up plans for the proposed employment exchange in Kirkby in a period shorter than the two years stated by him to be necessary.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Hugh Molson): None, Sir. This is a large project involving a number of Departments, and the time required for consultations with the planning authorities and the detailed work essential for a firm price tender is not excessive. There is not sufficient urgency about this job which would justify me in giving it priority in the programme of work.

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir, but is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that Sir Christopher Wren designed St. Paul's Cathedral in less time than it has taken his Department to design a small employment exchange in Kirkby? Has he not plans in his Department which can be used in such cases? Is he aware that when we were in power we had the drawings for this Chamber and the surrounding buildings done in far less time? Why does he say that there is no urgency, when we have heavy unemployment in this very area?

Mr. Molson: I very much doubt whether my predecessor did in fact prepare plans for St. Paul's Cathedral in such a very short time. In the two years which we require, we need ten months for planning consultations with the three Government Departments which are to occupy this large building, and for preparing sketch plans; eight months for the working drawings; three months for preparing the bills of quantities; and three months for inviting tenders from contractors. It is our general policy to plan buildings in advance to meet the requirements of occupying Departments and I do not regard this as being an excessive period of time. There is no urgency about this at the present time since the Departments have adequate accommodation.

Mr. Wilson: Yes, but as the right hon. Gentleman really thinks it takes all these periods of time to do the work of designing an employment exchange for which designs must be on the stocks, how do the Government propose to solve the unemployment problem in areas like this? On the right hon. Gentleman's argument it will take even longer to build the factories which the Government are so far

failing to divert to the Development Areas?

Mr. Molson: We do not build all employment exchanges to the same design. We consider the site. In this case, as I have said, we are accommodating the Ministry of Labour and National Service, the National Assistance Board and the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance all in the same building.

Mr. Dudley Williams: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Socialist Government, who were responsible in 1931 for getting unemployment to the highest figure ever known in this country, ever made any attempt to extend the employment exchange of this town at that time? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Hayman.

Mr. Wilson: On a point of order. Since the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) wanted to know whether we—

Mr. Speaker: That does not sound like a point of order. We seem to be expanding a Question on an employment exchange to a discussion of the question of employment. I think it was originally asked by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson). Mr. Hayman.

Mr. H. Hynd: The hon. Member told a lie, Mr. Speaker.

Captain Pilkington: On a point of order. The hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) has just stated that my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) told a lie. Cannot the hon. Member be reprimanded and made to withdraw that expression?

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear it said. Was it said? Did the hon. Member for Accrington accuse another hon. Member of telling a lie?

Mr. H. Hynd: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I did not use the proper Parliamentary expression. I intended to say that the hon. Member was guilty of a terminological inexactitude.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member ought to make a manly withdrawal, if he used that expression.

Mr. S. Silverman: Further to that point of order. Has it ever been the custom


of the House for the Chair to take notice of muttered remarks, unjustified remarks, and contradictions from the other side, when they were not made in speeches?

Mr. Speaker: The Chair listens to as much as it can hear and sometimes to as little as it can hear. I did not hear anything wrong in what was said. Mr. Hayman.

Mr. H. Wilson: rose—

Mr. Dudley Williams: May I have my apology, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Wilson: On my original point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Exeter to ask why things were not done in this town eight years ago when the town has been in existence for only four years?

Mr. Speaker: No, it was not in order, and that is why I did not permit the Minister to answer it.

Mr. H. Hynd: May I ask a question, Mr. Speaker? As the hon. Member for Exeter made a complete misstatement of fact, and as that has been repeated—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about the lie"?]—so often in this House, it is time it was nailed. It is a lie, and he knows that it is not true.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is just making things worse. He ought to withdraw if he accused another hon. Member of telling a lie. He ought to withdraw the word.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. H. Hynd: When you first chided me, Mr. Speaker, I did withdraw it in favour of the traditional phrase "terminological inexactitude".

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Hayman.

House of Commons (Members' Lift)

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Works whether he will arrange for the lift serving the Basement, the Ground Floor, the Library Floor, the Committee Floor and the Upper Committee Floor to be manned by an attendant on sitting days from 9 a.m. until the House rises.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Harmar Nicholls): This lift is at present manned from 10 a.m. till 7 p.m. on sitting days.
My right hon. Friend is not convinced that the further cost which would be involved by increasing the hours that this lift is manned, would be justified. The hours were extended in April, 1958, in an endeavour to meet the representations of the hon. Member.

Mr. Hayman: Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell his right hon. Friend that he has grossly insulted 67 hon. Members who have desks on the Upper Committee Corridor and that it is a gross and intolerable strain upon us to have to walk up the steep stairs in this House when the lift is out of action; and, further, would the hon. Gentleman remind his right hon. Friend that he is acting like an old Primrose League lady who is frightened of becoming bankrupt?

Mr. Nicholls: I am sorry the hon. Gentleman has used these extreme terms. I can assure him that my right hon. Friend is giving close attention to this matter because he wants to mitigate any difficulties in which hon. Members may be placed.

Big Ben (Centenary Celebrations)

Mr. Partridge: asked the Minister of Works whether he has now decided in what manner he will celebrate the centenary of Big Ben.

Wing Commander Bullus: asked the Minister of Works what proposals he now has for celebrating the Big Ben centenary.

Mr. H. Nicholls: It has been decided to hold an exhibition with a display of models and other exhibits connected with Big Ben and the Clock Tower. This will be held in the Westminster Jewel Tower, which is within a few hundred yards of Big Ben, and itself is one of the last remaining fragments of the medieval Palace of Westminster. The exhibition will continue throughout the summer, during which time the Clock Tower will be floodlit. The opening on 3rd June will follow a ceremony in New Palace Yard, in the vicinity of the Clock Tower, to which Members of both Houses will be invited. The exhibition will be open to Members that afternoon and to the public on the following day.
As we recognise that Big Ben holds a special place in the minds and hearts of many people throughout the world, the Palace authorities are providing certain facilities for access to the Clock Tower


for Press and film coverage and I understand that the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. will be featuring the centenary in broadcasts.
The Central Office of Information is arranging, on behalf of the Overseas Departments, that these events will be celebrated in official cinema and television news reels in many countries, both Commonwealth and Foreign; a short film will also be prepared and will be distributed in a number of languages.

Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, you have reflected before now on the length of supplementary questions. May we have any comment upon the length of an Answer of that sort, which might well have been a Ministerial statement?

Mr. Speaker: The length of an Answer depends to some extent upon the nature of the Question. If an hon. Member anticipates that a long Answer is necessary to his Question, he should put it down as a Question for a Written Answer.

Later—

Mr. Partridge: May I say that I did not know the length of the Answer and that I was asking for information and not seeking to give it as so many hon. Gentlemen opposite do?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

British Hat and Allied Feltmakers Research Association

Mr. Moss: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works as representing the Lord President of the Council, what official contribution is made to the British Hat and Allied Felt-makers Research Association; and upon what basis this contribution is calculated.

Mr. H. Nicholls: An annual grant is made by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research to this research association, graduated according to the industrial contributions received from member firms. For the year ending 31st March, 1958, a grant of £4,725 was paid on a contribution of £6,618.

Mr. Moss: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this small research association is the only one in the country carrying out research intended to protect road

users against head injuries? Does he consider its financial resources sufficient for that purpose?

Mr. Nicholls: As the hon. Member knows, the production of headgear which will protect people from the worst effects of road accidents is not the main reason for this particular research. Indeed, the crash helmets used by motor cyclists are the ones which comply with the British standard specification, not just this felt referred to by the hon. Member.

Mr. Moss: Is not it true that in Germany, in France and in the United States of America much greater resources are devoted to this purpose than in this country?

Mr. Nicholls: For the grants to this association, the ratio of contributions from the Government as against subscriptions from the associate members is higher than the average. Normally it is £4 for every £10 and in this case the grant is £6 for £10.

Mr. Moss: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, whether he will make a special grant to the British Hat and Allied Felt-makers Research Association, in view of its development of No. 11 anti-shock felt now used by a Warwickshire firm, the name of which has been supplied to him in the production of protective caps for motorists and other categories of road users.

Mr. H. Nicholls: This was recently explored by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and rejected on the grounds that the circumstances did not warrant such special treatment. If, however, industry wishes to increase its subscription to this work in the research association, these subscriptions will he matched by Government grant on the basis of £6 for every £10 in the normal way. It is also open to the council of the research association to allot such priority as it sees fit to such an item on its research programme.

Mr. Moss: Has the hen. Gentleman considered that this is an industry of small manufacturers who find it difficult to raise large sums of money and that the research association is in need of technical equipment and trained personnel?

Mr. Nicholls: Very likely for that reason the grant is £6 for every £10, compared with the average of £4 for £10.

Mr. Moss: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, to what extent the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has co-operated with the British Hat and Allied Feltmakers Research Association in the production of an anti-shock felt to be incorporated into caps or hats for the better protection of motorists and other road users against head injuries; whether such a felt has now been produced; and what protection it can give.

Mr. H. Nicholls: The Road Research Laboratory of D.S.I.R. was consulted by a hat manufacturer and suggested that felt might be used in protective hats. The manufacturer and the British Hat and Allied Feltmakers Research Association, who are grant-aided by D.S.I.R., have cooperated with the Laboratory to select a quality, density and thickness of felt that would be most satisfactory for anti-shock protection. While no precise assessment can be made of the protection afforded by this felt, a protective cap or hat incorporating the felt would be of some value, especially in minor accidents. It must however be stressed that such felt hats are no substitute for the motor cyclist's crash helmet.

Mr. Moss: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is no intention of saying that the protective felt cap or hat is a substitute for a crash helmet, but that it is clear that it provides 60 per cent. protection against a 4,000 lb. impact? Can he say whether that has a scientific and medical basis?

Mr. Nicholls: Research has so far recorded that this felt certainly does offer some protection. There is no question that it is short of grant-in-aid support and thus prevented from making that result more widely known.

Building Sites (Weather Protection)

Mr. Russell: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, whether the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has yet investigated the use of a polythene tent to cover a house-building site in Sussex,

thereby saving over 200 man-hours which would otherwise have been lost in wet weather; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. H. Nicholls: The Building Research Station of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has studied various methods of covering building work under construction and is aware that it is possible to do so both effectively and economically, and we hope that this Question will draw attention to this facility so that builders can use their own discretion as to its use. It is, of course, a matter for individual builders, in the light of local conditions, to decide what use to make of the knowledge available.

African Territories (United States Mission)

Colonel Beamish: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, when the Smith Mission, headed by Mr. James Smith, Director of the International Co-operation Administration, which administers United States foreign aid, visited British Territories in Africa; what was its purpose; what consideration is now being given by Her Majesty's Government to its first conclusions; and if he will make a statement about the possible lines of development of this new example of Anglo-American co-operation.

Mr. H. Nicholls: This mission, of the United States International Co-operation Administration, visited Africa in November, 1958, to explore the possibilities of greater utilisation of the scientific resources of the United States, and other countries, in attacking the problems of under-developed territories, particularly in tropical Africa. The mission was naturally anxious to see the work in this field being carried on in British Territories. Her Majesty's Government welcomed their interest and, at the invitation of the Americans, two British scientists were attached to the party.
In the United States of America, I.C.A. has the advice of a distinguished panel of scientists and experts, which has been established by the United States National Academy of Sciences under the chairmanship of Dr, W. Albert Noyes. My noble Friend the Lord President understands that this committee is expected to report


to I.C.A. in June. In this country my noble Friend has appointed a panel of scientists, chosen for their experience in this field, under the chairmanship of Sir Alexander Todd, to advise generally in this field, and collaborate with the American panel. Her Majesty's Government welcome this new example of Anglo-American collaboration.

Colonel Beamish: While joining with my hon. Friend in the welcome he has given this new arid enlightened American approach, may I ask if he can say in what directions this most important development is likely to take place?

Mr. Nicholls: Mainly in tropical agriculture and tropical medicine.

Fats and Oils (Oxidisation and Rancidity)

Mr. Willey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what steps are taken to ensure that the research on the question of oxidisation and rancidity in fats and oils being undertaken both at the Torry laboratories and at the Low Temperature Research Station at Cambridge are fully coordinated and duplication avoided.

Mr. H. Nicholls: It is the intention of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and the Agricultural Research Council that the close liaison between the staff of these two stations shall be fully maintained by the usual formal and informal contacts, not only in the field of fat and oil deterioration but also in all other fields where the work may be of mutual interest. Care is taken to avoid unnecessary duplication.

Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

Mr. Willey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what steps are taken to coordinate the work being carried out at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food laboratory and similar work being carried out by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.

Mr. H. Nicholls: If the hon. Member is referring to the Research Establishment and Experimental Factory of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Torry Research Station of the Department of Scientific and Industrial

Research, which occupy adjoining sites in Aberdeen, many personal contacts have been established between the staffs of the two stations. A local working party consisting of officers from the two stations meets whenever necessary to discuss work of mutual interest.

Mr. Willey: I do not know if the Parliamentary Secretary has understood me aright. Will he see that formal arrangements are made to ensure that this duplication is avoided, without streamlining unduly?

Mr. Nicholls: Yes, the working party to which I have referred is a formal arrangement. It is a co-ordinating committee.

Foodstuffs (Packaging)

Mr. Partridge: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what research is being done in order to improve the standard of packaging of foodstuffs.

Mr. H. Nicholls: At the laboratories of the Printing, Packaging and Allied Trades Research Association, supported by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, work is being carried out on methods of protecting foodstuffs against the hazards of transport and climate with a view to reducing packaging costs and ensuring that goods reach the consumer in prime condition.

Mr. Partridge: May I ask my hon. Friend whether anything is being done about the standardisation of packets and the design of cartons?

Mr. Nicholls: It is under both of these heads that much of the research is being done.

Scientific Instruments

Mr. Lagden: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what facilities exist in the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research for providing help to research workers in the choice of suitable British scientific instruments for their investigations.

Mr. H. Nicholls: An instrument inquiry service is provided at the British


Scientific Instrument Research Association and is largely financed by a contribution from the Scientific Instrument Manufacturers' Association and an equal grant from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.

Mr. Lagden: May I inquire if the service is proving valuable, and if it is limited to the members of the Association?

Mr. Nicholls: The number of inquiries at the present time is running at the rate of 2,200 a year and it is expected to grow considerably. Any bona fide inquirer can use the service and obtain advice.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: On a point of order. Is not it really an abuse of the House that we should have these inspired Questions and very long inspired Answers?

Mr. Speaker: It is quite in order.

Mr. Lagden: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research is doing to encourage the design of better and more attractive scientific instruments in order to compete in both the home and overseas markets against some of the foreign instruments now being produced.

Mr. H. Nicholls: The British Scientific Instrument Research Association, which is supported by the Department, is active in this field. It has a Working Party on Instrument Design which among other things reviews the specification, price and appearance of a variety of foreign instruments. In this way up-to-date information is made available to manufacturers of British instruments. In addition other research associations and the Department's research stations also design new scientific instruments, some of which are in production.

Mr. Lagden: May I inquire what is done with this inspiring information, and is the Board of Trade aware of it?

Mr. Nicholls: It is collated and used by members of the Association, who can call for it at any time.

Major Ports (Silting)

Mr. Maddan: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President

of the Council, what research is being undertaken by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research into the silting of major ports in Great Britain.

Mr. H. Nicholls: The Hydraulics Research Station has been responsible, with the Port of London Authority, for a comprehensive study of the causes of silting in the Thames Estuary and of possible remedial measures. It is making a similar study of the Mersey Estuary and the approaches to Liverpool Docks. Also it has recently commenced an investigation on a smaller scale into silting at Avonmouth Docks.

Mr. Maddan: May I ask my hon. Friend what results have been obtained from this work?

Mr. Nicholls: The main result so far has been to produce a new method of dredging, and the amount of dredging that has to be carried out has been very much reduced as a consequence.

Motor Vehicles (Exhaust Noise)

Mr. Russell: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what research is being carried out on the reduction of noise from the exhausts of motor vehicles.

Mr. H. Nicholls: The Motor Industry Research Association, which is grant-aided by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, has carried out research on the silencing of the exhaust noise from motor vehicles and motorcycles and has developed test methods which the industry now uses. The Association is continuing to work on the general problem of noise, especially from the point of view of the pedestrian and the passenger. The British Internal Combustion Engine Research Association, also grant-aided by the Department, has investigated exhaust noises of diesel engines.

Mr. Russell: While thanking my hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask whether he agrees that there is still an enormous amount of noise from motorcycles and certain types of sports cars and lorries which could well be done away with? Will he give every possible encouragement to all kinds of research?

Mr. Nicholls: We have not reached perfection in this matter, but research is still going on. It is the responsibility of the police authorities to control excessive noise.

Mr. M. Stewart: In the light of all these Questions and Answers, is not it amazing that private industry should reap general benefits from public funds and public research?

Mr. Nicholls: We think it is a good thing that public funds and public research should work in partnership with private industry.

Industrial and Economic Microbiology

Mr. Willey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, whether the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research will make available information about research and investigations in this country similar to the information it has made available in its Overseas Technical Report on Industrial and Economic Microbiology in North America.

Mr. H. Nicholls: An outline of research on industrial microbiology in the United Kingdom has already been published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office last year in a British Commonwealth Scientific Conference Report entitled "Review of industrial microbiology in British Commonwealth Countries".

Mr. Willey: Will the Parliamentary Secretary say whether he will continue this publication so that we may have available as much information about our own research as we have from this excellent publication about research in North America?

Mr. Nicholls: I will bring the hon. Member's remarks to the attention of my noble Friend. I also hope the hon. Gentleman has read the particular document to which I have referred.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Housing Accommodation, Caithness

Sir D. Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now use his powers under Section 48 of the

Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, to direct Caithness County Council to prepare and submit to him forthwith proposals for the rehousing of Mr. and Mrs. Isaac McPhee and their five children who are living in a 10 foot by seven foot shack on the hill above Latheron, where their health is endangered.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for this slightly lengthy reply.
My right hon. Friend has investigated the progress being made by Caithness County Council in the difficult task of finding accommodation for tinker families normally resident in its area, and he is satisfied that he would not be justified in proceeding as my hon. Friend suggests.
The absorption into the community of tinkers, with their traditionally itinerant mode of life and dwelling, presents grave problems for all concerned and does not always meet with success.
Since last June, permanent housing has been found for nearly half of the fifteen tinker families then remaining on the county council's list as still living in unsuitable accommodation.
On 12th February, the council again reviewed the case of the family referred to by my hon. Friend and instructed that all practicable steps should continue to be taken to provide accommodation. As this becomes available, this case, together with the others, will be considered by the county council.
My right hon. Friend has expressed deep concern that the McPhee family should be rehoused as soon as possible. In the meantime he has received a medical report which indicates that there does not appear to be any evidence of illness in this family attributable to the bad conditions under which they are living.

Sir D. Robertson: Is it not a miracle that two adults and five children have lived for seven years on this exposed hillside? I think that God has been good to them. Is not the hon. Gentleman's statement rather one of defeatism? Is it not the case that the father of the family did his duty as a soldier in the recent war when he was called up? Why should he and his wife and children be denied a home such as others can get, and to which they are entitled under the law?

Mr. Browne: I am not defending bad housing conditions. This application was made in July, 1956, but, as I have explained to the hon. Gentleman, the council is maintaining its progress and has already rehoused a very large number of tinker families living under equally difficult conditions.

Mr. T. Fraser: Can the Joint Under-Secretary say if the large number—I should think seven or eight, from what he has said—of tinker families rehoused since last June were more overcrowded than this family or were living in conditions worse than those in which people were living in this case?

Mr. Browne: Yes, Sir—or as bad.

Mr. J. Stuart: Is not this a matter which has been the concern, and rightly so, of the local authorities for a considerable number of years, and would not any departure from that policy be one of queue-jumping, which would lead to endless difficulties in very many quarters?

Mr. Browne: Yes, Sir.

Mr. H. Morrison: Is not this an exceptional and really terrible case—that this family of seven persons should be living in this shack of essentially limited size? Is it not disgraceful that they have not been found accommodation?

Mr. Browne: No, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman will know, although he does not represent a Scottish constituency, that there are in Scotland very many people with far longer outstanding applications living in very bad housing conditions, and I am satisfied that the local authority is doing its best and is doing all it can to better this position.

Mr. H. Morrison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, even though I do not represent a Scottish constituency, I am a Member of Parliament and entitled to be concerned?

Ambulance Service

Mr. Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the time taken between the placing of the contracts on behalf of the St. Andrew's and Red Cross Scottish Ambulance Service for new ambulance service vehicles in 1958 and the delivery of those vehicles; and how these delivery dates compare with what had been customary in previous years.

Mr. J. N. Browne: The main order for vehicle bodies was completed in just under six months after the placing of the contract and a supplementary order is expected to be completed in just over three months. This compares with from five to thirteen months in the last two years in which orders were placed.

Mr. Lawson: Is not it true that normally the provision of these vehicles takes five or six months?

Mr. Browne: Yes, Sir, but we have done very well in this particular case.

Mr. Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the nature of the breakdown that threatened the Scottish Ambulance Service in the winter of 1958–59; and how this situation arose.

Mr. J. N. Browne: The joint committee advised that there was likely to be a serious and unexpected shortage of ambulances. The numbers of vehicles requiring replacement or major repair were greater than expected. In addition the committee's estimate of vehicles to be saved as a result of co-ordination schemes proved to over over-optimistic. Additional ambulances were, therefore, required to maintain the fleet at full strength during the winter.

Mr. Lawson: Is not it the case that no orders at all were placed for ambulances during two complete years—from 1955 to 1958—and that it is for this reason that there was this threatened break-down of the service in Scotland? Is not it the case that a "penny wise and pound foolish" policy has been followed?

Mr. Browne: No, Sir. As the hon. Gentleman knows, big changes have been taking place in the Scottish Ambulance Service, and all for the better. This is one little "trip-up" that we have had.

Pharmaceutical Chemistry (Diploma Course)

Miss Herbison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when a course leading to the diploma of pharmaceutical chemistry will be established in the West of Scotland.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): The long-term requirements of the West of Scotland for facilities for pharmaceutical education are being considered by the


Pharmaceutical Society, the pharmacy schools, and officials of my right hon. Friend's Department. In the meantime, the Royal College of Science and Technology, Glasgow, has agreed to continue the present two-year diploma course for one more course starting in October, 1959.

Miss Herbison: Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that when this course is finished at the College of Science and Technology in Scotland, there will be some institution in the West of Scotland providing this course leading to the diploma? Is he aware that the decision previously taken—that students from Glasgow and the whole of the West of Scotland, an area of country occupied by nearly half the population, should be asked to go to Aberdeen or Edinburgh to take this important course—has caused very much ill-feeling?

Mr. Macpherson: As the hon. Lady knows, all students who were registered with the Pharmaceutical Society after 1st March will, in any case, have to take a three-year course in addition to their preliminary year. There is, therefore, very little difference between that four-year course and a degree course. But I will tell her that the whole question of long-term provision was discussed at a meeting convened by the Pharmaceutical Society last week. We shall certainly watch what happens in regard to the demand for courses, but we think that there will be a preference for a degree course in the West of Scotland.

Miss Herbison: But, surely, the Under-Secretary is aware that, where we have a three-year course and a four-year course in teaching, by far the greater number still take the three-year course. Is he not also aware that what he says is no excuse at all for not having this three-year diploma course available in the West of Scotland?

Mr. Macpherson: The hon. Lady also knows that the three-year course is generally prefaced by a one-year preliminary course, making a four-year course in all. But I can assure her that this matter is under very close consideration.

Crime (Central Investigation Department)

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has given further

consideration to the proposal that a central crime investigation department be made available on request, or on his advice, to render immediate and expert assistance to any police force in Scotland; and what is his decision.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has considered this matter again; but in view of the extensive and expert resources of large forces like Glasgow and Edinburgh, which are already available to other forces in Scotland on request, he does not think any other organisation is needed.

Mr. Hannan: The Under-Secretary will be aware of the case that has given rise to this Question. For over two years a criminal was at large in Lanarkshire—if one may name the place—and it was only after the Glasgow force was called in that action was taken. What does the Department propose to do to ensure that local police force autonomy in this matter will not take precedence over the apprehension of criminals such as this?

Mr. Macpherson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is a fundamental part of the police service of the whole of this country that it is organised locally, and not nationally. Both in Scotland and in England, the responsibility for calling in assistance lies with the local police force.

Mr. T. Fraser: Does not the Under-Secretary appreciate that there is a growing volume of opinion in Scotland in favour of the establishment of a central criminal investigation department; and that that opinion has very recently been supported by a book just published, written by a learned sheriff-substitute in Renfrewshire? Will he reconsider the decision he has announced this afternoon?

Mr. Macpherson: The hon. Gentleman will realise that even if a central criminal investigation department were to be established, it would not mean that it would be called in in every case. The decision would still lie with the individual force.

Police Headquarters, Dundee (Accommodation)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken to improve the standards of accommodation at police headquarters. Dundee.

Mr. N. Macpherson: This is a matter for Dundee Town Council, as police authority.

Mr. Thomson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Dundee police, the magistrates, the court officials and the office staff are living in what is a quite disgraceful office slum; that the chief constable has presented a long list of what he himself calls "hopeless conditions", and that police headquarters are built with Government grant? Does not the Government intend to do anything to provide decent conditions for the policemen?

Mr. Macpherson: The Dundee Council has not yet submitted proposals, but if proposals were received and approved, from the technical point of view, by Her Majesty's inspector and our architects, we should try to fit the scheme into the capital investment programme—particularly as Dundee is an area of high unemployment.

Licensing Laws

Mr. McInnes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will undertake to have a full inquiry made into the Scottish licensing laws.

Mr. N. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend regrets that there is nothing he can usefully add at present to the Answer he gave to the hon. Member on 3rd February.

Mr. McInnes: Is the Under Secretary aware that, almost without exception, the the Scottish Press has very definitely expressed the view that the Secretary of State is about to announce the appointment of a Royal Commission? Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman refutes that opinion, and that no such appointment will be made within, say, the next year or two?

Mr. Macpherson: If an announcement is to be made, it will be made to this House.

Mr. T. Fraser: Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that if his right hon. Friend is considering the desirability of appointing a Royal Commission to inquire into the licensing laws in Scotland, he will have the unanimous support of Her Majesty's Opposition for that proposition?

Town Development (Scotland) Act, 1957

Mr. McInnes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many families have moved from Glasgow under the provisions of the Town Development (Scotland) Act, 1957; and if he will indicate the areas to which they have been transferred.

Mr. J. N. Browne: Housing development has started at Haddington, Kirkintilloch and Johnstone, and the first tenants are now being selected by the local authorities concerned, in consultation with Glasgow Corporation. Movement is expected to begin this year.

Mr. McInnes: May I ask how many families have been removed from this area? Does he realise that this Glasgow problem, involving 300,000 people, is a very serious one; and that less than 100 families have been removed since the introduction of the Act two years ago? Will he deal with this problem as a major operation, necessary because of the seriousness of the position in Glasgow?

Mr. Browne: Yes, Sir. We are treating it as a major operation. Work on over 1,000 houses is in hand, excluding a further 900 which are being built for Glasgow families in the new towns.

Drunkenness (Investigation)

Mr. McInnes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he anticipates the investigation being conducted by the Social Survey Division of the Central Office of Information into drunkenness in Scotland is likely to be completed.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I understand that the results of this inquiry will not be available for some months.

Mr. McInnes: When the results are to hand, will they be made available to hon. Members?

Mr. Macpherson: I think that we should first receive the Report, and then consider how to deal with it.

Mr. McInnes: But surely the Under-Secretary is in a position now to indicate whether the results of the investigation will be made available to Members of Parliament. What is the use of having an investigation if the House is not to know the result?

Mr. Macpherson: This is a Great Britain investigation. It is customary to await the Report, and then, even if only formally, to take a decision whether or not to publish it.

Agricultural College, Aberdeen

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the proposal to build a new agricultural college, at public expense, near Aberdeen; how far the proposal has gone; how much it will cost; what accommodation and training facilities it will provide; how many students it will provide for; and what will be its relations with Aberdeen University when completed.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord John Hope): As the Answer is rather long I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Can the Joint Under-Secretary say what steps the Secretary of State has taken to determine the very important question of whether it is better to have this college within the precincts and the amenities of the city, where the university now is, or to build a new college, at great expense, out in the country? What evidence has he collected on the subject, and what is the result?

Lord John Hope: The hon. Member will be able to look into this when he sees the Answer, and he can then have another go at it.

Following is the Answer:

The need to rehouse the college has been recognised for some time and provision has been made in the estimates of my right hon. Friend's Department for the work to begin in the next financial year. Building proposals have been framed by the college and are under discussion with the Department. It is too early to make a firm estimate of accommodation and total cost, but it is expected that the college will provide teaching facilities for about 100 students, together with accommodation for the advisory service.

The future relationship between the college and the university is primarily a matter for these two bodies. There are already certain constitutional links between them.

River Pollution (Advisory Committee)

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when his Advisory Committee on River Pollution last met; and how many meetings were held in 1958.

Mr. J. N. Browne: My right hon. Friend understands that the Committee has not met since April, 1957, mainly because certain information which it has asked the river purification boards to collate and submit about conditions in their districts is not yet fully available, but that the Chairman hopes that it will be possible to resume sittings very shortly.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: Arising out of that reply, may I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that April, 1957, is quite a long time ago? Is he satisfied that this Committee is tackling its work with the urgency that the problem deserves?

Mr. Browne: Yes, Sir, I am satisfied. We have reason to think that further meetings will take place very soon.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of this work is being held up by objections? I am sorry to say that some of these objections, probably on the grounds of expense, are coming from the nationalised industries. Will he ask his right hon. Friends who are responsible for these industries, and other Government Departments, to see that they, at least, do not hold up the work by lodging unnecessary objections?

Mr. Browne: Yes. We will do what we can to help the Advisory Committee.

Nurses

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that increasing numbers of trained nurses are emigrating to Canada and the United States of America; and what steps he intends to take to reverse this trend.

Mr. J. N. Browne: My right hon. Friend has no information which suggests that there has been any marked upward trend in the number of nurses emigrating to Canada and the United States in recent years and he does not consider that any special steps are called for.

Mr. Hamilton: If the hon. Gentleman has not the figures in his possession, will he take the trouble to obtain them? That is what he is paid for. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Royal College of Nursing has said that this is happening? If it is happening in the length and breadth of Britain, obviously it must be happening to some extent in Scotland. Further, is he aware that in West Fife in particular there is a shortage of nurses and the regional hospital board is preventing hospital authorities from advertising for nurses in the local Press? What kind of crazy system is this?

Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman must believe that it is possible that he is not right. The total number of trained nurses in Scotland has increased steadily over the last ten years. There may be local difficulties, but there is no overall shortage.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman look into the specific complaint about the refusal of the regional board to give permission to local hospital authorities to advertise in the local Press?

Mr. Browne: Yes, but that does not arise out of the Question.

Education (Commonwealth Studies)

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he intends to take within the educational system to extend and improve knowledge of the Commonwealth.

Mr. N. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend will continue to assist the Scottish Committee of the Commonwealth Institute in the services it provides for schools to increase knowledge of the Commonwealth. He hopes also to issue a circular shortly about Commonwealth studies in the schools.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman enlarge on the statement in the recent White Paper on the Overseas Information Services that steps to encourage interest in Commonwealth affairs will be announced shortly? Will the hon. Gentleman indicate when he will be in a position to make such a statement?

Mr. Macpherson: The statement to which I have referred will be sent to the education authorities.

Locomotive Workshops, Inverness (Closure)

Mr. Steele: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what he estimates will be the effect on the town of Inverness of the closing of the railway workshops; and what representations on the matter he has received from the Highland Panel.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I understand that the effect on the town of Inverness of the proposed closure of the locomotive workshops cannot be accurately measured until the discussions, which are now being held between the management and the trade unions, have been taken further. My right hon. Friend has received representations from Inverness Town Council about the adverse effect of the closure on the town. The Highland Panel has not yet had an opportunity to consider the matter.

Mr. Steele: Will the hon. Gentleman say if his right hon. Friend has been associated with the representations made by the Provost of Inverness and the trade unions concerned, from whom I myself have had representations? Is he aware that we in the House are anxious to see more industry in the Highlands, and especially in Inverness? Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the difficult situation which will arise as a result of the closure? Will the hon. Gentleman associate himself with the representations of the trade unions and the Provost to see if this matter can be reconsidered?

Mr. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend is in touch with the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, but, as the hon. Gentleman realises, this is a matter of management for the Commission.

Mr. N. McLean: Will the Joint Under-Secretary of State or the Secretary of State also bear in mind that the Government are directly interested in the problem, as they have said that they wish to promote suitable industry in the Highlands? In his consultations with the Minister of Transport and in any consultations which may take place with the British Transport Commission, will the Secretary of State bear in mind the importance of co-ordinating the policy of the British Transport Commission and his Department in promoting these industries in the Highlands?

Mr. Macpherson: Yes. My right hon. Friend will certainly bear these matters in mind. I am bound to point out the limitations of action which are imposed by legislation.

Teachers

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the Report on measures to improve the supply of teachers in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. N. Macpherson: As some of the recommendations are within the province of bodies which must be consulted before my right hon. Friend can reach his decisions, he has sent the Report to them. He is also issuing a circular dealing with the recommendations that are primarily the concern of education authorities and is himself considering the remaining recommendations.

Mr. Thomson: Is the Joint Under-Secretary aware that this is an exceptionally able and thorough Report? In his considerations will he give special attention to the recommendations for higher salaries, for the payments of pensions to retired teachers who return to work and for the better representation of teachers in the work of education authorities?

Mr. Macpherson: Yes. All these matters will be considered, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there are bodies, as the Advisory Committee recognises, which have to be consulted first.

Secondary Schools (History and Geography)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the anxiety about the future status of history and geography in Scottish secondary schools caused by the proposed new regulations of the Scottish Universities Entrance Board, he will now accept the recommendations contained in paragraphs 125–127 of the Report of the Working Party on the Curriculum of the Senior Secondary School and initiate discussions with the Universities Entrance Board on this subject.

Mr. N. Macpherson: The recommendation referred to appears to mean that where institutions do not give adequate recognition to leaving certificate passes in terms of their own entrance examina-

tions my right hon. Friend's Department should convene meetings with them in order to work out an acceptable syllabus. Since passes in corresponding subjects in the leaving certificate and the university preliminary examination are already treated exactly alike a meeting with the Universities Entrance Board for this purpose seems unnecessary.

Mr. Thomson: Is the Joint Under-Secretary completely unaware that there is very great anxiety in Scottish educational circles now about the position of history and geography and that, if the position as between the Scottish Education Department and the Scottish universities is allowed to continue, students will be able to graduate from Scottish universities after having had only two years of history tuition in their whole life? Is not this a thoroughly illiberal move? Will the hon. Gentleman do something to bring about discussions to stop this?

Mr. Macpherson: Representations have been made from both sides of the House and strong views have been expressed in many parts of the country. I understand that the four universities are not in full agreement on the new proposals. Presumably they will have to be considered further.

Miss Herbison: Is not the Joint Under-Secretary aware that there is only one matter on which the four universities are not agreed, and that is higher English? Glasgow University is insisting on English in the higher standard. That will be the only thing to be considered by the Privy Council. The Secretary of State must take some responsibility on the question of history and geography teaching.

Mr. Macpherson: I should not like to confirm what the hon. Lady has said—that that will be the only question to be considered by the Privy Council. If the matter has to be considered there, it will be considered as a whole.

Land, Summerston (Development)

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to be able to make a decision in respect of the development of land at Summerston. Glasgow.

Mr. J. N. Browne: The development of this area would require an amendment to the Glasgow Development Plan. No such


amendment has yet been submitted to my right hon. Friend by the Corporation, which is, I understand, awaiting the final decision on the National Coal Board's proposed new mining development at Bearsden which will substantially affect any development at Summerston.

Mr. Hannan: In the interval, can the hon. Gentleman arrange that at least Glasgow Corporation's advisers will have access to the Coal Board's plans so that it can try to meet the difficulty by consulting its own plans?

Mr. Browne: We will give Glasgow Corporation any assistance that we possibly can.

Road Construction

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what he estimates will be the effect on the South-East of Scotland of the decision to speed up work on road construction.

Mr. N. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend has authorised additional highway expenditure in the South-East of Scotland to a total value of about £98,000. I shall, with permission, circulate detailed information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: Does this include a speeding-up of work on the Dunbar bypass, which is particularly needed?

Mr. Macpherson: No, I think not.

Following is the information:


ADDITIONAL HIGHWAY EXPENDITURE IN THE SOUTH-EAST OF SCOTLAND


Local authority
Maintenance of trunk and classified roads
Street lighting


Approximate total expenditure
Loan sanction



£
£


Berwick C.C.
4,000
—


East Lothian C.C.
4,000
—


Midlothian C.C.
8,000
15,000


Peebles C.C.
1,000
—


Roxburgh C.C.
4,000
—


Selkirk C.C.
2,000
—


Edinburgh T.C.
—
45,000


North Berwick T.C.
—
15,000



23,000
75,000

Advance Factories, Glenrothes

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the granting of permission to Glenrothes Development Corporation to build five advance factories.

Mr. J. N. Browne: These small advance factory units of 2,400 square feet each are similar in scale and purpose to those which have been approved from time to time in all the Scottish New Towns. They are intended for letting to smaller firms and service industries.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the hon. Gentleman hold out any hope that, when these factories are built, they will be occupied forthwith? Can the hon. Gentleman say on what basis their building is being financed?

Mr. Browne: They are financed in the ordinary way out of the New Towns funds. They are not so much factories as small workshops, and they will all be occupied.

Crimes (Investigation)

Mrs. Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the disappearance of Moira Anderson of Coatbridge, aged 12 years, remains unsolved, that the man who carried away Betty Nichol, aged 12 years, escaped, and no arrest has been made, and that the clothes of John Condon, aged 5 years, who naked body was found in a canal, have not been recovered; and if he will call for a report under Section 34 of the Police (Scotland) Act, 1956, on steps taken regarding these matters, in order to satisfy parents of these and other children in this constituency.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Full reports on the cases of Moira Anderson and Elizabeth Nicol were obtained from the chief constables concerned before a reply was given to the hon. Lady on 25th November. My right hon. Friend understands from the chief constables that, although their investigations are continuing, there have been no developments since that date. As regards the case of John Condon, he has just received a report and will write to the hon. Lady as soon as he has fully considered it.

Mrs. Mann: Will the hon. Gentleman say if his right hon. Friend has any power, if the local authority has any


power, if anyone on earth has any power, to compel a chief constable to call in trained detectives to solve these mysteries? Have we to wait until there are another eight murders in Lanarkshire before trained detectives are sent there?

Mr. Macpherson: I think that the hon. Lady is perhaps being a little unfair to the police forces in Coatbridge and Airdrie. Both of them have a much higher proportion of solved crimes than the average for the country as a whole. If the hon. Lady takes only two examples, she is being rather unfair to the authorities concerned, in the light of those figures.

EXPLOSION, ALDERMASTON (REPORT)

Sir A. Hurd: asked the Prime Minister if he has received the report of the board of inquiry into the fatal accident at Aldermaston on 26th February; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Yes, Sir. I have received an interim report from the Board of Inquiry.
The Board reports that the explosion occurred during the course of conveyance by truck of high explosives; that the explosion was confined to the vicinity of one building; and that there was no outbreak of fire.
Two men were killed instantly, one was injured, and eleven other workers were treated for shock.
The Board has directed that certain tests shall be carried out, and it will make a full report when it has the results. This may not be for some weeks.
The Board has not been able to find any eye-witness of the actual event which led to the explosion. The injured man was interviewed in hospital, but his memory was confused about the circumstances and he could remember very little about the occurrence. I am glad to say that he is making a good recovery from his injuries.
The Board reported that it instituted an independent radiological survey of the site of the accident, from which it is

clear that radioactive materials were not involved.
The Board concluded
that the explosion must be regarded as an accident and did not arise as a result of negligence.

Sir A. Hurd: I thank my right hon. Friend for that Answer, but do I understand that this report is in the nature of an interim report and that a fuller report, though not necessarily a highly technical one, will be published later on? I ask that particularly in view of the fact that any unhappy accident at an atomic station always makes news headlines and causes alarm. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is desirable that there should be the fullest possible statement to show that there was nothing particularly sinister about this unhappy accident?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I have tried to give a fairly full summary of the interim report, and I propose to do the same with the final Report. This is the usual practice in regard to accidents at Royal Ordnance factories. I should like to emphasise what my hon. Friend has said, that only high explosives were involved and no radioactive material was concerned; neither was there any release of radiation.

Mr. Gaitskell: We are all glad to hear the confirmation in the Prime Minister's statement of the earlier statement of the Atomic Energy Authority that no radiological action was involved. Does the Prime Minister propose to publish this interim report? Further, can he say whether—presumably it was—the trade union side was brought into consulation before the report was made?

The Prime Minister: I will consider the question of publication. It has not been the practice in these accidents to publish the reports, but to give a fairly full summary, as I have done on the interim report and certainly will do on the final report. This is not, for instance, like the Windscale accident which did involve radioactive material. As regards the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, Mr. L. J. S. Orchard, a staff side representative of the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment at Aldermaston, and Mr. A. M. M. Douglas, trade union representative of the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment, were both members of the Board of Inquiry.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not inconsistent with the traditions of the House that Ministers such as those who have answered until now, except the Prime Minister, should answer at such inordinate length, as they have done, as to deprive the Prime Minister of the opportunity of answering important Questions, especially as he is spending so much of his time abroad?

Mr. Speaker: I think that there have been faults as to length on both sides today.

Mr. Hughes: Further to that point of order. Is not today a very remarkable day in that respect? Never in my recollection of the House have Questions been answered by Ministers at such inordinate length as they have today.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In view of the Prime Minister's imminent departure to America, would he care to ansker Question No. 49?

Mr. Speaker: He may not do so.

FIRE, ILFORD

Mr. Cooper: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement concerning the fire which occurred at High Road, Ilford, on the night of 16th March, at approximately 19.50 hours.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): The fire, of which the cause is at present unknown, began in a large departmental furniture store. My right hon. Friend is informed that the first call was received by the fire brigade at 19.49 hours on 16th March, and that three appliances attended immediately and were at the fire three minutes later. Reinforcements were called for at once, and 39 pumps, from five brigades, attended altogether.
Preliminary reports indicate that the fire had gained a certain hold at the time the first appliances arrived. The fire spread to a drapery store and several small shops as well as the furniture store, The fire was under control by 23.33 hours.

Mr. Cooper: May I pay a tribute to the extraordinary services rendered by the fire service, the police services, the voluntary organisations and the officials of

the local borough council in this, the greatest disaster sustained by the Borough of Ilford in peacetime? To refute statements made in the Press, will my hon. Friend confirm that the Ilford Fire Brigade was at the scene of the fire within three minutes, and not 20 minutes as stated in the Press? Also, will she confirm that the fire precautions in the store in which the fire started were in accordance with the regulations? Further, may I be informed whether it is intended to hold an official inquiry into the fire?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I am very glad to confirm what my hon. Friend has said. There was certainly no delay in the operation of the fire services. Indeed, in having three appliances there within three minutes, the fire service gave its normal standard of efficient service to its area.
As regards the fire precautions within the store, I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that I would prefer to await the report of the fire authority, which is the usual practice following a fire of this magnitude, before making any comment on that.
As to the third part of his Question, again my right hon. Friend must wait for the usual report of the fire authority before deciding whether there are any grounds for holding an inquiry.

Mr. Iremonger: Despite local appreciation of the way in which the local services—the fire service, the police service, the local voluntary welfare services—rose to the occasion, and in spite of our thankfulness that there was no loss of life, there is one matter on which there is very considerable concern, for it raises a question of national interest, namely, whether it should be made obligatory for commercial firms to comply with the requirements of the fire prevention recommendations of the local council as is the case in factories. Will my hon. Friend please consult her right hon. Friend about the desirability of looking further into this?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I will certainly look into the point my hon. Friend raises, but I am sure that he will agree that we must await the fire authority's report on this very disastrous fire. I am sure that we all have great sympathy for the people of Ilford in the very great loss that they have sustained in their main highway.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Sir T. Moore: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A few years ago, the Secretary of State for Scotland assumed responsibility for Scottish roads and, presumably, therefore, for the confidence and safety of those who use them. Accordingly, I put down Question No. 82 to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but, without my authority, it was transferred to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation. That seems to me to indicate an abdication of his responsibilities on the part of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
The bevy of Under-Secretaries has now disappeared, but I was going to ask you, Sir, whether you would allow one of them to assume the responsibility, which the Secretary of State has abdicated, for answering my Question No. 82.

Mr. Speaker: I could not allow that. Question No. 82 refers, I think, to Prestwick Airport. I have heard questions about the loop road, and so on, discussed by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation. Probably there is some reason for the transfer of the Question. It has nothing to do with me.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Heath.]

Ordered,
That this day—

(1) paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply) shall have effect as if a reference to Seven o'clock were substituted for a reference to half-past Nine o'clock, and
(2) Proceedings on any Private Business set down for consideration at Seven o'clock by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means shall not be entered upon until after the Proceedings on the Report of Resolutions from the Committee of Ways and Means [12th March] and on the introduction and presentation of any Bill founded upon those Resolutions shall have been concluded.—[Mr. Heath.]

Ordered,
That Proceedings on any Private Business set down for consideration at Seven o'clock this evening by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) and that, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), any such Private Business may be taken after Nine o'clock.—[Mr. Heath.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[9TH ALLOTTED DAY]

REPORT [12th March]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1958–59; CIVIL (EXCESSES), 1957–58

Resolutions reported,

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1958–59

CLASS IX

VOTE 2. ROADS, ETC., ENGLAND AND WALES

1. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £11,262,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, for expenditure, including grants and loans to highway, etc., authorities, and to the British Transport Commission, in respect of roads in England and Wales and services connected therewith, including the construction, improvement and maintenance of roads, road research, road safety, the provision and maintenance of vehicles and equipment for use by police forces engaged on certain duties, salaries of surveyors, and the stopping-up and diversion of highways and advance payments in respect of land acquired for trunk roads; for expenses in connection with the collection of motor vehicle duties, etc., and the registration of motor vehicles in Great Britain; and for certain compensation payments.

CLASS V

VOTE 5. NATIONAI, HEALTH SERVICE, ENGLAND AND WALES

2. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £16,589.706, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, for the provision of a comprehensive health service for England and Wales and other services connected therewith, including payments to Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man, medical services for pensioners, etc., disabled as a result of war, or of service in the Armed Forces after the 2nd day of September, 1939, certain training arrangements including certain grants in aid, the purchase of appliances, equipment, stores, etc., necessary for the services, and certain expenses in connection with civil defence.

VOTE 11. NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE, SCOTLAND

3. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,376,500, be granted to Her Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course

of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, for the provision of a comprehensive health service for Scotland and other services connected therewith, including medical services for pensioners, etc., disabled as a result of war, or of service in the Armed Forces after the 2nd day of September, 1939, certain training arrangements, the purchase of appliances, equipment, stores, etc., necessary for the services, certain expenses in connection with civil defence, and sundry other services

CLASS VIII

VOTE 1. MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

4. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £290,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; of the Agricultural Land Commission; of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; and of the White Fish Authority and the Scottish Committee thereof.

VOTE 2. AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD GRANTS AND SUBSIDIES

5. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for grants and subsidies to farmers and others for the encouragement of Food production and the improvement of agriculture; for payments and services in implementation of agricultural price guarantees; and for certain other services including a payment to the Exchequer of Northern Ireland.

VOTE 3. AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD SERVICES

6. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, for grants, grants in aid and expenses in connection with agricultural and food services; including land drainage and rehabilitation of land damaged by flood and tempest; purchase, development and management of land, including land settlement and provision of smallholdings; services in connection with livestock, and compensation for slaughter of diseased animals; provision and operation of machinery; training and supplementary labour schemes; control of pests; education, research and advisory services; marketing; agricultural credits; certain trading services; subscriptions to international organisations; and sundry other services including certain expenses in connection with civil defence.

VOTE 11. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR SCOTLAND

7. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment


during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland and the Crofters Commission; for grants and subsidies to farmers and others for the encouragement of food production and the improvement of agriculture; for certain payments in implementation of agricultural price guarantees; and for grants, grants in aid and expenses in connection with services to agriculture; including land drainage and flood services; purchase, improvement and management of land; land settlement; public works in the congested districts and roads in other livestock rearing areas; services in connection with livestock and compensation for slaughter of diseased animals; provision and operation of machinery; training and labour schemes; control of pests; agricultural education, research and advisory services; marketing; and agricultural credits.

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLE- MENTARY ESTIMATES, 1958–59

8. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £58,090,145, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, for expenditure in respect of the following Supplementary Estimates, viz.:

CIVIL ESTIMATES


CLASS I



£


1.
 House of Lords
7,444


4.
Treasury and Subordinate Departments
25,000


5.
 Privy Council Office
248


6.
 Charity Commission
556


8.
 Crown Estate Office
5,250


9.
 Exchequer and Audit Department
10


10.
 Friendly Societies Registry
10


13.
 Government Hospitality
6,000


15.
National Debt Office
10


17.
 Public Record Office
10


22c.
 Civil Service Remuneration
6,190,450


23.
 Scottish Home Department
10

CLASS II


1.
 Foreign Service
595,920


2.
 Foreign Office Grants and Services
6,651,876


5.
 Commonwealth Services
487,408


8.
Colonial Services
12,804,334


11.
Imperial War Graves Commission
75,000

CLASS III


1.
 Home Office
2,470,410


2.
 Home Office (Civil Defence Services)
10


3.
Police, England and Wales
690,648


4.
Prisons, England and Wales
738,400


5.
 Child Care, England and Wales
270,000


6.
 Fire Services, England and Wale
354,680


7.
 Carlisle State Management District
10


8.
 Supreme Court of Judicature, etc.
10

£


9.
County Courts
10


11.
 Land Registry
10


16.
 Police, Scotland
169,000


17.
 Prisons, Scotland
158,000


19.
 Fire Services, Scotland
40,000


21.
 Law Charges and Courts of Law, Scotland
10


22.
 Department of the Registers of Scotland
10


23.
 Supreme Court of Judicature, etc., Northern Ireland
1,071

CLASS IV


1.
 Ministry of Education
1,900,000


2.
British Museum
67,800


6.
 National Gallery
125,000


7.
 Tate Gallery
955


12.
 Universities and Colleges, etc., Great Britain
1,000,000


13.
 Broadcasting
10


14.
Public Education, Scotland
333,250


17.
 National Library, Scotland
10

CLASS V


2.
Housing, England and Wales
1,574,000


8.
Central Land Board
9,740


9.
War Damage Commission
23,000

CLASS VI


1.
 Board of Trade
85,200


5.
 Financial Assistance in Development and other Areas
2,128,990


6.
 Export Credits
10


9.
 Ministry of Labour and National Service
10

CLASS VII


2.
 Houses of Parliament Buildings
10


3.
 Public Buildings, etc., United Kingdom
1,110,000


11.
 Peterhead Harbour
10

CLASS VIII


12.
Fisheries (Scotland) and Herring Industry
10

CLASS IX


1.
 Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation
131,700


3.
 Transport (Shipping and Special Services)
10


4.
 Civil Aviation
10


6.
Ministry of Power (Special Services)
6,002,600

CLASS X


1.
Superannuation and Retired Allowances
1,400,000


2.
Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance
83,205


3.
War Pensions, etc.
579,400


5.
National Assistance Board
4,574,000

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS


1.
 Customs and Excise
326,400


3.
Post Office
4,893,000




£58,090,145

CIVIL (EXCESSES), 1957–58;


9. That a sum, not exceeding ¤94,262 18s. 1d., be granted to Her Majesty, to make good excesses on certain grants for Civil Services for the year ended on the 31st day of march, 1985.


Class and Vote
Excess of Expenditure over Estimate
Appropriations in Aid
Excess Votes



£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


Class II











1. Foreign Service
147,522
19
3
147,512
19
3
10
0
0


Class X











4. National Insurance and Family Allowances
94,853
15
6
600
17
5
94,252
18
1



Total, Civil (Excesses)

£94,262
18
1

First Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

ROADS PROGRAMME

3.42 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The Opposition have chosen to discuss the Supplementary Estimate for Class IX, Vote 2, dealing with roads in England and Wales, as it is some time since the House had the opportunity of discussing the roads programme. It seemed to us desirable to assess whether the programme is adequate to meet the traffic needs of today and whether the Government are proceeding on the right lines. It may well be that this is a subject which is a little less controversial than many which the House has been recently discussing, but that may not prove to be entirely so.
The Minister, understandably, takes a great deal of credit unto himself for the increase in authorisations of expenditure on the roads programme, and to the extent that the programme is expanding it is welcome. The Supplementary Estimate which we are now considering shows an additional expenditure of £l1 million during the current year over the original estimate. In addition, there is the welcome provision of £1 million for the British Transport Commission to contribute towards its expenditure on bridges and level crossings, which is an old inherited liability and to which the Government, at long last, have decided to make a contribution.
It is perfectly true that as one travels about the country today there is evidence

of an increase in new road construction and major road improvements. This is welcome to all of us, motorists and others alike. I think, however, that one is struck by the fact that it is still too much on an ad hoc basis. There are still too many bits and pieces of improvement being undertaken, and, so far, no overall long-term plan has emerged. That planning of the roads programme, which is so desirable if further needs are to be met, still seems to be lacking.
I would not put it past the Minister to spread as wide as possible the expenditure which is authorised to obtain the maximum amount of prestige and political gain. One sometimes suspects that a disproportionate amount is being spent in marginal constituencies. That could be suggested in Lancashire, although the fiasco of the grand opening of the Preston by-pass and the shamefaced closing of if has rather detracted from the credit which the Minister there obtained.
It is necessary to keep the roads programme in perspective. It must be viewed in relation to what resources are available, what can be afforded and, above all, its relationship to need. If it is measured by those yardsticks, I do not think that the picture of what is being done to meet the need is as rosy as the Minister and his colleagues are inclined to paint it. Also, we cannot be so complacent if the programme is looked at in relation to what is being done elsewhere, particularly on the Continent of Europe. It is true, as I stated, that expenditure has steadily increased in recent years, but it has not increased nearly as much as the country can afford or needs.
It took the Government some time to get the programme under way, and,


although they came into office in 1951, during the four years from 1954 to 1958 expenditure amounted to only £50 million, which is not a very great sum for the road needs of the country. Subsequently, it has risen to an estimated figure of £40 million this year. It is estimated that the figure will be £50 million next year and will level off in 1960–61 to £60 million a year. This would appear to be a considerable increase, but the current rise is only the fulfilment of the programme announced in recent years. As the authorisations which were made three or four years ago are fulfilled, as they reach the constructional stage and the work nears completion, the expenditure was bound to rise and to reach this figure.
I am trying to point out that there has not been any real increase in the amount of authorisations and expenditure on the roads programme over what was announced a few years ago. Although today there is the opportunity of increasing substantially further the roads programme, that opportunity has not been seized. What the Minister claims as an increase is merely, in my view, the fulfilment of the current programme. A real increase would mean an annual rise in authorisations and expenditure. Then there would be an increase year by year and not a levelling out at this figure of £60 million at which the Minister tells us the programme is to be stabilised in 1960.
In assessing the real increase in expenditure, if there be an increase, I think that it would be helpful to the House if the Government told us what are the planned authorisations for the next four years. That is necessary for us to get the picture into its true perspective. Whether or not there is a real increase, a greater opportunity exists today for expanding the roads programme further than has existed at any time since the end of the war.
Because of the economic recession, which has resulted from Government policy, for the first time since the war ended, manpower, materials and equipment are available to add substantially to the roads programme without unduly calling upon national resources. Increased expenditure today would serve a dual purpose. It would provide an urgently needed national asset in a road system more suited to current traffic needs and,

at the same time, it would create employment both directly and indirectly.
It would create it directly by using greater manpower on road construction, though admittedly today, with modern techniques and mechanisation, there is not as great a direct use of manpower as there was before the war. Indirectly, it would result in a considerably greater use of manpower by utilising the idle capacity of certain industries, particularly of the steel industry, which is now running at only 75 per cent. of capacity. Furthermore, the schemes selected could be such as to bring work to those areas of high unemployment which are particularly in need of it.
Therefore, some of the major schemes which are now in the pigeon-holes and are urgently needed should be proceeded with, and the procedure for getting them under way should be speeded up as far as possible. It still takes far too long to get schemes from the drawing board to the point of actual construction. It is time that something was done to streamline that process. I am sure that the House will agree that it is a waste, let alone poor economics, to allow this potential capacity to go unused when the need is so great. More could be afforded, and more should be done.
Equally important to the adequacy of the programme is the obtaining of optimum results from what is spent. Sometimes one suspects false economies have been forced upon highway authorities and that today we are not always looking far enough ahead in the plans made for building new roads. For example, some of these roads, including the Preston bypass, have dual carriageways, but each carriageway carries only two instead of three lines of traffic. A three-line carriageway, such as exists on the Birmingham motorway, is accepted today as the modern standard and requirement.
In many other ways false economy is being exercised. Although the incident of the Preston by-pass is now a matter of history its closing would not have caused such a stir if this mere eight miles of motorway had not been hailed, as it was on its opening by the Prime Minister, as a far greater achievement than it was. It was blown up out of all proportion to its merits and this ballyhoo boomeranged, and quite rightly so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I want to make only one


point with reference to the Preston bypass. I think that the Minister was less than fair to the county authorities in his handling of this matter.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson) indicated dissent.

Mr. Davies: The Minister dissents. I shall be interested to hear his point of view when he replies.
The right hon. Gentleman said on 28th January, and he has repeated it subsequently, that he imputed no blame to anybody. But if anybody was to blame for what occurred it was the Minister himself. He should have accepted full responsibility. I say that because trunk roads are paid for 100 per cent. by the Ministry, or the Exchequer, and the highway authorities act merely as agents in carrying out the schemes. That means that plans must be approved by the Ministry before they are carried out. The highway authority, in this case the Lancashire County Council, acting for the Ministry, clearly had to carry out what the Ministry desires.
When the original plans for the Preston by-pass were put to the Ministry in 1954, they included provision for drainage, which was subsequently dropped after consultations had taken place between Ministry officials and county council officials. If it was suggested to the county authorities that their plans should be kept down for reasons of economy and that the drainage was not necessary, the blame rests 100 per cent. upon the shoulders of the Ministry and, therefore, upon the Minister himself. It is impossible to get away from the fact that ultimate responsibility rests with the Ministry for trunk roads and special roads. The main question which it is useful to ask in the debate is whether the roads programme now being undertaken is adequate to need.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of the Preston by-pass, with which he has dealt in a very reasonable manner, I should like to say that I know the county surveyor as one of the most conscientious officials in the country. This matter has had a very serious effect upon him and upon a number of others who are closely

associated with him. My hon. Friend has rendered a great service today, provided that the Minister gives us an adequate reply which will remove all the suspicions which have prevailed for far too long.

Mr. Davies: I appreciate what my hon. Friend has just said, but I do not wish to dwell on this subject. I am also acquainted with Mr. Drake. He has a national and international reputation. Nothing said in the House has detracted from that, nor should it do so.
As I was saying, the question that we must consider is whether the roads programme is adequate to the need. About three weeks ago we had an unseasonably fine weekend, which brought out a large volume of traffic. Already, before spring has begun, there have been long queues on the main roads in and out of London. If there should be a miracle this year and we should have a fine summer, I dread to think what the conditions on the roads will be like. To reach the coast in hours of daylight, if that proves possible, will be a terrifying ordeal, and to return during the hours of darkness will be a nightmare.
While it is the weekend travel that highlights the congestion from the point of view of the motorist, this is of far less concern than the increasing congestion in the cities and towns and its wasteful effect on the country's economy. New vehicles are coming on the road at the rate of half a million a year. I saw it estimated that if they were placed bumper to bumper they would stretch for 1,000 miles. The prospect of half a million vehicles adding to this congestion on the roads is terrifying.
New vehicles are adding to the congestion faster than that congestion is being relieved by the building of new roads and the improvement of others. If, during the next decade, the road building programme does not bring relief at a far faster rate and on a more imaginative scale than anything yet contemplated, we shall see traffic going through the towns at less than walking pace. The tortoise and the snail of Aesop's fable will be able to overtake it at speed. It seems paradoxical that when man has been able to attain a speed even faster than sound he can only travel through the cities in which he lives slower than ever, and that the speed at which he can


travel is reduced as the speed which he can achieve increases.
It is the urban areas which constitute the real roads problem. It is comparatively simple to build regional motorways, but it is far more difficult to build urban motorways to bring relief to the cities. I think sometimes that by thinking more in terms of a national network of motorways, essential as it is to speed traffic between cities, we are inclined to overlook that all the traffic that flows along them has a final destination and that for most of it that final destination lies within an urban area.
In fact, the figures of traffic density, origin and destination show that of all traffic approaching towns of 5,000 population or more no less than 50 per cent. is destined for points within them, but for cities of over 500,000 up to 1 million population only 8 per cent. is through-traffic, 15 per cent. is for the central business zone and 77 per cent. for other points within the cities. That means, in effect that more than 90 out of 100 vehicles travelling in the open country end up within an urban area and must, therefore, travel along the city streets. This is adding to the congestion as the number of vehicles increases together with the great increase in private transport within the cities themselves which is, of course, growing substantially at the expense of public transport. This is aggravating the problem still further.
It is, for the urban areas, a grim outlook and the congestion will become worse. If we fail to find a solution to the deterioration in traffic conditions in the cities, which has been progressive during recent years and which is certain to become worse, the problem will become almost insoluble because the cost of solving it will be prohibitive.
I should, therefore, like to ask the Minister today to tell the House of the plans which he has, if any, for the relief of this problem. The expenditure on the current programme, he informed me in reply to a Question, includes urban schemes, but, apart from the odd ones of which we learn, we have been given no general information as to the major schemes which are under contemplation for bringing about relief in the major cities.
It is not like the Minister to hold back from telling the country what he is doing

in the matter of the roads programme. He has not proved heretofore to be one of those introverts who hides his light under a bushel, or shirks the use of a personal pronoun in the first person singular. I ask him whether he can tell us more information about what he believes to be the final solution, if there is one, of the increasing problem of traffic congestion in the urban areas. Has he plans for urban motorways? They are probably the only answer to the problem. Major improvements to existing roads in the cities, necessary and inevitable as many of them will be, are not the full answer and may well prove more expensive than the building of the motorways which are, of course, roads with limited access, express-ways, or through-ways, elevated highways, or whatever one likes to call them.
It may even prove cheaper to build these than to pull down expensive buildings and widen narrow streets. It may cause less disturbance because they can take, as it were, the backyard route. They do not have to go through the most expensive areas and can go over the railway tracks and through the poorer areas. It may well be that the answer lies in the provision of urban motorways in all our large towns. If so, they must be planned in full co-operation with the town planners, the architects and engineers so that they avoid destruction of amenities or interference with the community life, as they would do if they cut through and divided the neighbourhood and its community life.
Unfortunately, this debate must end at 7 o'clock for Private Business, so all of us are proposing to cut our speeches short this afternoon to enable as many hon. Members as possible to participate. I will, therefore, conclude with two more points.
The Minister is fond of saying that more road building is being done today than at any time since the days of the Romans. I have no doubt that the officials in his Ministry engaged in a little research to ascertain exactly what the Romans were spending before he made such a rash statement as that. In fact, I tried to table a Question, but it was refused because it appears that comparisons with historical events, if they go back too far, are not in order.
I should like to ask the Minister two simple questions. First, can he tell us


what was the basis of his calculations that more money is being spent on the roads now than at any time since the Romans were in Britain? It would be interesting to know how he works that out. Secondly, can he tell us how much per head of the population is to be spent on roads this year and the comparable figure at present-day values during the Roman occupation.

Mr. James Griffiths: The Roman roads lasted 2,000 years.

Mr. Davies: Longer than the Preston by-pass. I think that the House would agree that it is entitled to that information. I regret that I did not give the right hon. Gentleman notice of this, so it may be that he cannot give the information now; but perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will give the necessary facts and figures at the end of the debate.
Finally, if the roads programme is to be effective in providing relief for traffic congestion and preventing further deterioration and is to meet future traffic needs, then a long-term plan is required based on a re-assessment of future requirements with full regard to the wider aspects of town and country planning, industrial location and land use. It is not enough merely to increase expenditure; it is essential to plan to obtain the maximum benefits from what can be afforded.
It is because the Government's roads programme is, in our view, quite inadequate to cater for current and future traffic requirements, and because they have failed to take sufficient advantage of the opportunity of the higher level of unemployment and greater availability of materials and are not working to a long-term plan, that we consider that on this, as on so much else, they are proving to be too complacent and have failed to fulfil their responsibilities.

4.9 p.m.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) will not think me discourteous when I say that I am not too deeply moved by his strictures on the roads programme. Building roads is one of the operations where results, fortunately, speak a lot louder than criticism. Indeed, I might

accuse the hon. Gentleman of being a little ungenerous. I have just written a letter to him, which I think he has received, saying that the Government are committing a scheme in his own constituency, costing well over £800,000, which will make a notable contribution to improving traffic conditions. Perhaps that is one of the areas where the hon. Gentleman thought that we should not be spending the money. If he will kindly tell me so, I shall be happy to shift the scheme somewhere else.
The Government have a great advantage over the Opposition in this matter, because, whatever arguments there may be about the Romans, the Government are engaged on the largest roads programme that this country has ever had in modern times. If the hon. Gentleman complains about the length of time it took to get these road schemes going, I make no comment on the ability of Mr. Alfred Barnes, then Minister of Transport, to carry out the large plan for motor roads which the then Socialist Government announced.
What has always astonished me—and I should say this today, because it explains the time taken to get the programme going —is that no preparatory work was done in those years. This work need not have cost a great sum of money, but no attempts were made to secure lines or start the long and necessary negotiations that have had to be undertaken. That is why my predecessors in this office—the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance—had to put in such an immense amount of painstaking preparatory work of which, quite frankly, I expect I am reaping the benefit. We had to start this enormous task of trying to close a twenty years' gap literally from scatch and it is right that this should be on the record.
If one wants to compare expenditure, the average expenditure in the years of our predecessors in the Socialist Government was £3 million a year on new works. I am not complaining about that, but it does not lie with the Opposition to say that we have moved very slowly in this matter. The fact is that we have moved very quickly indeed, bearing in mind that we found that no preparations had been made.
Now a passing word about Preston, since the hon. Gentleman raised the point. I can best answer what he said—I agree, in light and reasoned tones—by quoting from the technical journal Highways and Bridges and Engineering Works, as follows:
At Preston, unfortunately, politics has raised its head and the defect has stupidly been magnified into a national disaster. It is nothing of the sort. It is nothing more serious than a slip in a cutting on one of our railways which may cause a temporary blocking of at least one rail track. Neither at Preston, nor on the railway, does it cast any slur on the capabilities of the designers or contractors.
Certainly, it does not cast any slur on the county surveyor of the Lancashire County Council, Mr. Drake, to answer the point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith). It is, perhaps, one of the strange whirligigs of politics that I found myself at this Box, fairly and, I think, completely defending the Socialist-controlled Lancashire County Council while the Opposition were doing their best to denigrate it.
It was very bad luck on the Lancashire County Council and on Mr. Drake. They had my full support at the time, they have it now, in any arguments as to who was right or wrong. Perhaps hon. Gentlemen opposite will refer to the agreed statement that I made in the House—agreed with the Lancashire County Council and Mr. Drake—which was that the question of drainage was never an issue, either before or during the construction of the road.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman? It is important that we should know who is really responsible for this scheme. Will he confirm or deny, first, that the Ministry of Transport was responsible for that road, that it proposed and insisted on amendments to the original scheme put up to it? Secondly, could the Minister also tell the House whether or not it is true that a new bridge which was constructed in connection with this work has been in danger of falling down?

Mr. Watkinson: That is absolute nonsense. As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's interjection, if he will be kind enough to read my statement in HANSARD, he will see that it is a complete answer. I do not propose to waste the

time of the House any further on that point.
I will be brief, because many other hon. Members wish to speak. As to the question of unemployment, the Opposition have always considerably underestimated the attention which the Government have been paying for many months past to the relief of difficulties over unemployment, where these occur. A proof of this was that I was discussing with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the end of last summer, the part that road works could play in meeting any special difficulties.
As the hon. Member for Enfield, East has already made plain, road works are no longer pick and shovel jobs, and, therefore, they do not make a very big direct contribution. For example, the whole 72 miles of motor road in the London to Birmingham project employs, at the peak of construction, only just over 5,000 men. None the less, we went into this question and my Department was authorised by the Chancellor to start a small special programme, outside the rest of the programme, of road works in areas where there were unemployment difficulties. So far, schemes to the value of over £2½ million have been authorised to be started, the Government contribution being just over £2 million. About £½ million of this Government money will be spent on trunk roads and about £1½ million on classified roads.
The House may be interested to know the kind of useful scheme that is being worked and which will, I am sure, bring a direct dividend by improving communications, quite apart from any additional employment that may be provided by the road work. For example, in Cornwall there is an improvement of A38 costing £90,000. In Caernarvon, there is a widening at Pen y clip costing £76,000. In Norfolk, there is the Larlingford by-pass scheme costing £50,000. In Cornwall, for classified roads, there is a grant to A387, at Looe Bridge, of £70,000. In the North Riding there is the Scarborough-Whitby road scheme costing £59,000, of which £44,000 is ranking for grant. In Devon, there is the Barnstaple-Braunton Road scheme, with a grant of £37,000.
I could give many more examples of the useful work that is going on all over the country where there may be unemployment difficulties. As I have said, it


was all arranged a long time ago, it is now being carried out, and I think that it will make a considerable contribution. it is fair to say that the more rapid buildup in the programme, with which I will deal in a moment, was also considered against this background. The motor road from Birmingham to the South Wales ports, for example, was expedited because that link from the industrial Midlands to the South Wales ports is vital to their future.
The Tyne Tunnel, to which I shall refer shortly, will make a considerable contribution to increased traffic efficiency on the North-East Coast. Again, the Forth crossing, for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible, will bring some very big orders to the steel industry, and so will the Severn Bridge, which will follow it. I hope that I have given enough examples to show that we have taken the problem of unemployment carefully into account in considering the road programme.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I welcome very much the decision which has pushed forward the building of the road to link the South Wales ports, which have suffered terribly because of the pattern of the coal trade with Birmingham. Will the Minister consider another matter? Recently, the major factor in deciding where a certain big works should be sited was that of communications. The right hon. Gentleman knows that in South-West Wales, where the tinplate industry has been housed for over a century, communications are of very great importance. Plans are ready. Can we be sure that they will be given the green light quickly?

Mr. Watkinson: I have been having some discussions with the Minister of State for Welsh Affairs about the future roads programme in Wales. It is only fair to say, however, that Wales, as nearly always in these matters, has had its fair share, and probably rather more. However, there are some very interesting schemes, like the Heads of the Valleys Road, and the Newport urban scheme, which I hope we shall be able to authorise if we can overcome some of the local difficulties.
The hon. Member for Enfield, East said that the roads programme was neither planned nor adequate. I can best answer

him in two ways. The plan is perfectly clear to the majority of the country, if not to him. It is that we are concentrating on five major projects which, I am sure, I need not elaborate to the House, since they are well known.
Perhaps the scale of the build-up will be shown if I say that over the past four years the average of new construction and major improvements was roughly £12 million. Expenditure this year will be nearly £47 million; expenditure next year will be £55 million; expenditure the year after will be £65 million, and thereafter—and these are very important words and I am very grateful to the Chancellor for authorising them—this expenditure will be planned on the basis of not less than £60 million per annum.
Therefore, the Ministry has a firm base on which to plan for the future. If it can expand that base, good luck to it, but at least we have a firm base and the Ministry has never had that before. It will allow an immense amount of future planning to take place. Thus, I do not accept the hon. Member's strictures on either of those points.
Let us take one other figure and see what share of national investment is being put into roads. To the £60 million must be added £33 million of Government money for maintenance and minor improvements, many of which are vitally important. There must then be added £50 million for local government contributions. In other words, we are now spending at a rate of not less than £140 million a year on our road system. In my view, that is a very fair share of the capital investment programme, and again I say how deeply grateful I am to the Chancellor for allowing us to go so far.
A further example of how we propose to go ahead can be shown by just a few schemes which we hope to authorise very shortly. I want, first, to mention three which will make a direct contribution to easing holiday traffic. I know that there will be plenty of traffic jams this year, but at least they will be against the background of many new road works. Some of the work may make the traffic worse temporarily, but the motorists, I think, will be willing to put up with that.
Construction of the Staines by-pass and the new Thames bridge at a cost of £2·3 million, has been authorised and, provided


that there are no last-minute difficulties about land acquisition, work should start during the summer. Construction of the second half of the Maidstone by-pass has already been authorised, too. The contract has been placed at a cost of more than £800,000 and work will start in April. We have also authorised construction of the Maidenhead by-pass, with another new Thames bridge, at a cost of between £2½ million and £3 million. Work will start in May.
In addition, we are starting work on two new motor roads. In May or June, we start on the viaducts which are the first portion of the link from Birmingham to Preston, one of the most elaborate roads in this country and perhaps in the world. There will be 80 miles of motor road which will cost no less than £34 million, because it is nearly all a matter of bridges, viaducts, cuttings, and so on. It is an enormous job and a great challenge to those who are to build the road.
In the early summer, we hope to start work on the Doncaster by-pass, again a motor road, at a cost of about £6 million. We also hope to start work at the same time on the Stamford by-pass and the Stevenage by-pass. This is part of the work of bringing the Great North Road up to modern standards, and the total cost will he more than £40 million.
Those are only some examples of new schemes which will be started this year. [HON. MEMBERS: "For the election."] Hon. Members say that it is for the election. I am not arguing about that. I am saying that motorists should be very grateful to the Government for the work which they are doing on the roads. The schemes I have announced are all firmly under way, schemes for which the contracts are being, or, I hope, will soon be, placed, and where the work is about to be started. We do not make a lot of promises, as my Socialist predecessors did, unless the Ministry is able to fulfil them.

Sir Thomas Moore: My right hon. Friend has not mentioned Scotland. I presume that he will leave that to the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Watkinson: Unfortunately, this is not a Scottish Vote and my writ does not run in Scotland. It would be out of order if I referred to Scottish projects, but I should be very glad to talk to my hon. Friend about a matter in which I know he

has great interest; but we had better do so outside the Chamber.
I want now to refer to urban schemes, because I agree that the next task is to deal with the urban problem. It has always been made clear by my predecessors and myself that there was no sense in building a network of cross-country roads each one of which ended in a sort of urban bottleneck. The House might like to know the first phase of our attack on the urban problem. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will say a little about the broader strategy of the urban motor road when he winds up the debate.
The Tyne Tunnel is an urgent contribution of great importance to the North-East Coast. It will cost nearly £13 million and I hope shortly to authorise it. I hope, also, shortly to authorise the duplication of the Blackwail Tunnel at a cost of more than £7 million. That will deal with this bad bottleneck in London. As hon. Members know, the northern approach roads are already in hand.
The New Park Lane scheme will start in October. This is the largest urban scheme in London for many years. It is an interesting comment on the complexity of the task which those who build roads have to face—in this case, the London County Council—that the L.C.C. will have to spend £¾ million on diverting sewers and services before the work on the actual road scheme can be carried out. In other words, months of preliminary work will have been done and much money already spent before the passer-by will seem to see anything happening.
The Hammersmith flyover and the Talgarth Road widening, to complete the Cromwell Road extension—both of which schemes the Ministry has pressed on the L.C.C., which was very willing to be pressed on this issue—will be considered shortly. I could continue to give examples of work in London, but I will now turn to examples outside London.
We hope soon to authorise part II of the Birmingham Inner Ring Road scheme, costing more than £1 million. This will bring the ring road into operation. It is an ingenious scheme and great credit is due to Sir Herbert Manzoni and the Birmingham Corporation. It is a scheme which we are glad to back. The


northern approaches to the new Runcorn —Widnes bridge will cost more than £1 million, and will shortly be authorised. The bridge itself is progressing well and the actual erection of the steel span is about to start. The bridge itself will cost nearly £3 million.
In the West Country, I commend the enterprise of those who have taken on the construction of the Tamar crossing as a piece of private enterprise. I was delighted that the Chancellor enabled us to allow work on that to go forward. I hope that others will come forward with this fascinating idea of forming their own companies and associations to build bridges and tunnels. I should be very happy to assist them to impose tolls in order to make an attractive investment from such a scheme. We shall soon be adding to the work in Plymouth with the Laira bridge at a cost of more than £600,000.
Again, I hope that those examples will show that the first phase of the attack on the urban problem to deal with urgent bottlenecks, tunnels and bridges, is well advanced. We are now considering how we can best meet the next phase, the full-scale urban motor road which many of us have seen in the United States and elsewhere. I am not sure that such a scheme in all its severity is the right answer in our historic towns and cities.
I should welcome the co-operation of the architectural profession, engineers and the British Road Federation, and all those interested in seeing whether we cannot design our own solution to this urgent problem. There may be what one might call a British solution to this problem and that that solution might make a contribution here and elsewhere. In looking ahead to the urban road programme, we will welcome new ideas on how to shape it to fit in with the old and historic buildings and history of our towns and cities and our own special problems. We intend to press on with that.
I have one last comment to make, in general, on the roads programme. Although the hon. Member has accused me of being unduly fond of publicising my own efforts, they are, in fact, Government efforts, and a Minister of Transport cannot do anything unless his colleagues support him and provide him with the

necessary funds. It is, therefore, the Government which can take the credit.
There is, however, one important principle which I should like to enunciate, and this, I think, is a more personal matter. I take it that I carry the whole House with me—indeed, the hon. Member said this very fairly—in saying that it is everybody's desire to press forward with the roads programme as quickly as is physically possible. Certainly, it is in the interests of every motorist, and the Government's great success in creating a car-owning democracy cannot be fully exploited unless our road system is rapidly brought up to date. The hon. Member himself referred to half a million new motor vehicles.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I thought that it was to be a property-owning democracy.

Mr. Watkinson: Cars are property. What is more healthy or more pleasant for a city dweller than to be able to step into a modern motor car and to go out into the countryside for a pleasant week-end, thus gaining health and recreation? What is wrong with that?

Mr. Griffiths: He needs a job first.

Mr. Watkinson: If it were not for the booming motor car industry, which is one of the great supports of our export industry as well as of our home prosperity, there would be many fewer jobs in the Midlands.
We must provide the roads on which this growing industry can work and breathe. It is against this background that I wish to make my next comment. If we are to press forward fast enough to keep pace with this motoring age, those who build the roads must take some carefully calculated risks. If they are to over-insure or to become over-cautious —and the House has done its best in recent weeks to see that they are overcautious—or if they are to become unduly worried about bad weather difficulties or subsoil problems or some other problem of planning, we shall be beaten in this task before we start, and that would be a great disservice to almost everyone in the country.
That is why I take my stand firmly in support of all those who are willing to press forward the roads programme against the inevitable difficulties which


must arise. The Ministry does not build roads. The Government provide a large share of the money. In respect of trunk and motor roads they provide 100 per cent. of the money. The Ministry's road engineers, the Road Research Laboratory and other expert Government sources try to see that this money is properly laid out in the public interest, as advised by consulting engineers and by local authorities.
The roads are then constructed largely, as they should be, under the direct control of the local authorities whose areas they serve. In some cases, a consulting engineer does the job, as Sir Owen Williams is doing in the case of the London-Birmingham motorway. It is the Government's view, and certainly mine, that we should encourage local authorities to take their full responsibility and to build these roads as well as they can, as the agents of my Ministry. It is a partnership, and, therefore, it is absolutely right that they should have my full support when things sometimes do not go entirely right.
It does not worry me at all when I myself am knocked about in the House. That is part of the process of getting things done, and on the whole I rather enjoy it. There are those outside the House, however, who do not always welcome being made the centre of political sensation. I therefore hope that the House and the critics outside it will bear in mind the enormous difficulties which these men face. They are trying to close a twenty-year gap. In some cases they are having to learn by experience. They are having to contend with summers and winters which, over the past twelve months, seem to have the same adverse climate.
I hope that the House will say that they deserve our support and the nation's full support. They are doing a good job. It is in the national interest, because if we do not build these roads we shall deal a great blow at the efficiency of our industries. We shall increase their transport costs and stifle new industries. This country cannot be expansive and prosperous without a new road system. Let us therefore support those who are trying to provide it, against difficulty, in the shortest possible time, and let us wish them well.
As for the scope and the scale of what they have to do, I believe that it is as much as they can manage for the moment. As the programme gathers further momentum and it seems that more work can be done, we shall try, as far as we can, to keep the industry reasonably fully extended, because this job is essential to our national well-being. The Government intend to press it forward as fast as they possibly can.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. George Darling: I feel sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House were pleased to hear the Minister talk about our having a car-owning democracy. The more wage-earners who have motor cars the better it will be, because it will be a sign of our having an expanding economy.
I am, therefore, grateful that the Minister is to give his support to the trade unions to press for higher pay all round, thus enabling the workers to have the motor cars which the Minister wants them to have. I hope that he will also bear in mind that certain Tory local authorities in this country are aiming to evict tenants from council houses if they become the owners of motor cars. I hope that those reactionary measures by Tory local authorities will be opposed by the Minister and by all those hon. Members opposite who believe, with him, in a car-owning democracy.
The right hon. Gentleman announced that over the next few years the Government will work up to an annual expenditure on roads, including local authority expenditure, of about £140 million. That includes major roads, minor schemes and local authority contributions. He apparently thinks that that is satisfactory. We are, of course, grateful for any progress which is to be made. The Minister said that the gap to be filled by what he believes is a spurt in road building is a twenty-year gap. If one looks at road-making in this country one realises that the gap is much wider than twenty years. When one thinks of the enormous number of unemployed in the 'twenties and 'thirties who could profitably have been put to work on road making, one realises that we could have had a much better road system today.
The Minister mentioned a number of schemes, which, he said, were examples and not a complete list of the schemes


which are now in progress and contemplated. When one looks at the road needs of the country one sees that even with the schemes which he announced, some of which are quite big and the number of which is impressive compared with what has gone before, the whole programme is utterly inadequate. He made no mention of the hundreds of local authorities, regional and town planning authorities, who have put forward schemes of all kinds all over the country and who apparently will have to wait years and years before these schemes can be implemented. For example, there is the great need for a network of urban motorways, of the type which both the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) mentioned, in the West Riding of Yorkshire. This is a very urgent need, and apparently no consideration is to be given to the schemes for this area for some time.
I have always been puzzled about how road schemes are selected and about the working of the financial restrictions on road building. Although the Minister said that £140 million was quite a satisfactory figure, or he suggested that it was, it is a small part of our national income, less than 1 per cent.; and it is only about 3½ per cent. of the total capital investment of the country. If the Government make so low an assessment as to say that less than 1 per cent. of the national income should be spent on the roads—less than 4 per cent. of the total capital investment programme—I think that they are taking an inadequate view of our need.
It is necessary to look at the national need to decide what ought to be done about road building. From 1948 to 1957 the number of road vehicles doubled, from 3¾ million to 7½ million. We started off with an inadequate road system in 1948. Then there were few dual roads and far too many dangerous three-line highways. The main roads through congested areas were quite inadequate. But despite that low starting level, in those ten years we have added only 82 miles of trunk roads to the road system and only 200 miles of Class 1 roads. The new schemes and improvements now being announced will not take us very far. We must face the problem of how

much of the national resources should properly be spent on providing an adequate network of roads.
In my view, the Government have given the whole project of road building a disgracefully low rating in their estimate of capital needs. Were any objective view taken of the investment needs for all industrial, commercial or social purpose—for factories, offices, shops, harbours, railways, power stations, schools, hospitals, houses and so on—I am confident that a properly planned investment scheme would not put the roads part at such a low figure as is placed upon it by the Government—less than 4 per cent. of the whole of the capital investment of the country.
One of the troubles is that the Government, and, perhaps the previous Government—I do not know because I was not a Member of the House in the period from 1945 to 1950—have been too complacent about the need for road building. Despite the announcements of the Minister, I think that the Government are still too complacent about road building programmes. The right hon. Gentleman repeated today, in slightly different words, the views he expressed at Question Time on 28th January when he was asked about the Preston by-pass. He said then, as he has said today, that the Lancashire County Council pushed forward with the work and took some risks, and that it was justified in doing so and had his support.
But who pushed what forward? This was a scheme for building a very short stretch of trunk road. Of course, it was needed, but it is a lamentably short stretch of trunk road. It took five years to plan and build about 8 miles of road—or whatever is the distance. To call that pushing things forward is, in my view, to misuse the English language. I consider it a halting, faltering, snail-like progress. So long as we have Ministers who can be proud of that kind of progress, this atmosphere of complacency will remain.
We need to plan our national investment programme in such a way as to provide a much higher priority for roads. I suggest that there are certain criteria which we should bear in mind. No one mentions in the House as frequently as it should be mentioned the appalling toll exacted by road accidents. There were 300,000 people killed or injured last year and we cannot calculate the cost to the—

Mr. Graham Page: May I correct the hon. Gentleman? The figure is over 500,000 a year.

Mr. Darling: There is some confusion about the figures. I have taken my figure from the Abstract of Statistics and I think that I shall work to that official figure, although I shall not quarrel with the hon. Gentleman if he wishes to correct me. Whatever the figure, it is too high.
The official figure is about 300,000. We cannot calculate the cost of that, and the suffering and everything which is entailed by this appalling toll. The figure is equivalent to the number of people in a fairly large city. It means that equivalent to all the inhabitants of a city have been killed or injured in one year as a result of road accidents. Unless that factor is taken into account in assessing the money which should be spent on road improvements, we have not a sound criterion for calculating what should be spent. Quite a number of road accidents result from congestion, particularly in crowded urban areas. That is one reason why so far, as possible, roads in the urban areas should be designed to take traffic away from the neighbourhood of schools and houses and places where children play, and where old people might be knocked down.
Another factor which must be taken into account is the frustration, delay and expense caused by time wasted in bottlenecks in the road system. I do not know whether it is possible to calculate the amount of petrol wasted through engines idling because of traffic delays, or the pollution of the air by exhaust gases from vehicles being congested in one spot. Certainly, the waste of time and expense caused by delays in the delivery of goods, and the bad temper, with its resulting psychological effect on drivers, are matters which should be taken into consideration.
There is another important factor which the Minister should remember. He mentioned it this afternoon. He said, rightly, that we have a good motor car industry, and to a large extent the measure of our national prosperity depends on the success of that industry, particularly in the export markets. We must bear in mind that if we do not provide the roads for the cars to travel along, the motor car industry will have to stop producing cars. A saturation point will be reached, because people will

no longer buy cars. There will be no point in their doing so if they are not able to put the cars on the road. Because of the importance of the motor car industry to our export trade I am confident that far more than 3½ per cent. of our national investment should be devoted to road building.
The ordinary private motorist buys a car to indulge in what is now somewhat euphemistically called pleasure motoring. But there is not much pleasure to be derived from driving along congested roads. One may be able to get from one place to another for a picnic, but to try to travel to the coast on a summer day means that one is involved in such a large amount of traffic that any idea of pleasure is defeated. If the Government are to give the motorist a square deal, they must provide adequate roads. Through their licence fees and through the petrol tax, the motorists have paid enough money to provide the finest road service in the world. It is about time that they received some recompense for the money which they have contributed in this way. The needs of the pleasure motorist should be taken into account.
These are the criteria upon which the Government should work to in assessing the size of the road programme which, in my view, is about one-third too small. The expanded programme that the Minister has produced, working up, as he said, to £140 million in a few years' time, is about one-third too small. It is woefully inadequate. It will not give the motorist the road system that he ought to have; it will not give the people engaged in commercial and passenger transport a road system that they have helped to pay for and ought to have; it will not reduce the toll of accidents sufficiently to make us feel that we have a road system that is satisfactory.
Therefore, instead of our being complacent, as the Minister wishes us to be this afternoon, we should criticise all the plans he has put forward as being completely inadequate to the national needs.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I vigorously oppose a number of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), and particularly the


innuendo, which I agree was not pressed too hard, that there has been some sort of delay on the part of my right hon. Friend in producing plans for the development of the road programme. If there has been delay, and if we have not progressed as far as we could have done, the blame must lie partly with the party opposite.
We appreciate that during the war there must have been a complete cessation of road building and even delays in road maintenance, and that it was inevitable at the end of the war that the Ministry of Transport would be faced with very big arrears and would be in competition with other planning departments in getting funds for post-war reconstruction. Our complaint is that at that time the Ministry of Transport was much more interested in nationalisation of transport than in its modernisation. Not only did the paper plans of motor roads that Mr. Barnes produced turn out to be much more of a pipe dream than a plan, but in six years only £17 million was spent on major road improvement, and when my right hon. Friend and his predecessors came into office they found they had to begin the preliminary work of further improvements to our roads and had to start from scratch.

Mr. Darling: Is the hon. Member suggesting that there were no pre-war plans in the pigeon-holes and that the London-Birmingham motorway was produced after 1951?

Mr. Wilson: I am not suggesting that there were no pre-war plans but that they were out of date.

Mr. Darling: No.

Mr. Wilson: Motoring had developed since pre-war days and much more had been learned in the interim. I have never been at the Ministry of Transport, so I cannot say from my own knowledge, but it has been repeatedly stated that the plans were not far advanced when our Ministers took office. My right hon. Friend repeated that today. The hon. Member for Enfield, East knows very well, and so does the hon. Member for Hillsborough who interrupted me, that we cannot build roads overnight. They have had considerable experience of this matter.
A number of hon. Members on the Opposition benches have had experience of seeing the motorways under construction, not only in this country but abroad. I know they have, because I have been with them when they were seeing them in places like Belgium, Holland, West Germany, West Berlin and Austria. These roads take a considerable time to plan, and it is said that they take longer here than anywhere else. The reason for that is well-known. Not only do we pay greater attention to the rights of the individual, allowing time for reflection and public inquiry and procedures of that sort, which are not considered necessary in other countries, but there is a psychological difference in approach on the part of the public here from what there is elsewhere.
I have mentioned before a conversation which I had with some German officials on one occasion on this subject. I asked them whether when they had planned a road on a route from A to B their local landowners did not say that the route should go in a different direction, namely, from X to Y. The German officials looked very puzzled and went into a huddle about it. Then one of them turned to me and asked, "But who would question the route of a road once it was official?" I suggested that they should go to Oxford. That shows a different attitude of mind from ours and has nothing to do with delays caused by disputes about compensation or with inquiries and so on. We have to face the fact that it does happen.
We have made very substantial progress in the last year or two, as the hon. Member for Enfield, East admitted. There has been a considerable speed-up in the building of roads in that time. I am told that the total sum authorised for the next four years, from 1958 to 1962, will be about £240 million, which is quite a substantial amount. It includes the five major projects which have been referred to, two of which have made considerable progress. They are the Great North Road and the London—Birmingham—Preston motorway. In respect of the Preston motorway, I would remind hon. Members that the whole history of civil engineering is one of overcoming the unexpected difficulties, ever since the days when the Severn Railway Tunnel suddenly flooded to the more recent mishaps at the Kariba Dam. It


is nothing new for an engineer to meet unexpected difficulties. If we attempt to anticipate all the difficulties, road construction will be very slow. We hope that the authorities will not take that sort of attitude.
We understand that about 66 miles out of 116 miles of the projected new Great North Road has already got, or is getting, a dual carriageway and that about 70 miles out of 110 miles of the London-Birmingham motorway are nearing completion. I am not so sure of the state of progress of the other three projects, the road to the Channel ports, the Midlands-South Wales road and the London-South Wales road. I understand that they are all in the earlier stages of development but are making good progress. I hope that in the winding-up speech to this debate we may have information about how far these projects have gone.
I agree that all this is not enough to solve the road-congestion problem or the urban motorway problem, which is very big. Quite a lot is going on in London on a very large scale, such as at the Elephant and Castle, at Notting Hill Gate and on Route 11, but there are very big problems to deal with. There are several things to be remembered. It is not enough to have motorways between one town and another, because they create bottle necks. There is a limited amount of skilled labour and machinery for these very big jobs, and on certain of them, tunnelling for instance, there is definitely a shortage.
In addition to that, the cost of motorways is very large indeed. It is about £⅓ million per mile for motorways outside the towns and between £3 and £4 million per mile for motorways in urban areas. I am told that the double-decker roads will cost anything from £11 to £12 million per mile. That is a very big sum. Hon. Members cannot have it both ways; it is not good enough for them to come here and demand more motor roads and to come in three weeks' time and put down every conceivable Amendment to the Finance Bill to ask for every possible reduction in the taxation that has not been proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
It is obvious, as I think the hon. Member for Enfield, East said, that a balance must be struck between public need for

more roads and the proportion of the revenue which can be spent on them without restricting other services; but if hon. Members think that balance is wrong, I should be much more impressed by their arguments if I also heard them opposing the pleas of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) for a reduction of Purchase Tax, opposing repayment of post-war credits, opposing any increase in the Health Services, education or pensions, in order that the money might be diverted to roads. In fact, they do none of those things.
The British Road Federation and certain other bodies particularly interested in roads do say that the proportion of the national income spent on roads is inadequate and that we have not got the balance right. If we agree with them we should alter the balance either by increasing taxation or restricting expenditure somewhere else, but it is no good demanding more expenditure on roads and not increasing taxation or restricting expenditure anywhere else. I suggest that hon. Members with their more varied experience of national needs appreciate that it is not easy to increase taxation nor to decrease expenditure without doing damage to the national economy, and for that reason we should accept the fact that the balance is right.

Mr. Charles Pannell: It so happened that in my last election address I put better roads among the high priorities but I also put them in as a contribution to an expanding economy which would pay for the other things, including Purchase Tax. The hon. Member ought to attack his own Government for a contracting economy.

Mr. Wilson: I do not accept that it is contracting.

Mr. Pannell: Of course it is; there is stagnation.

Mr. Wilson: It is a question of balance. Unless we are prepared to make very large changes in taxation or expenditure, I think hon. Members opposite will have to agree that my right hon. Friend has struck the balance about right in all the circumstances and that he is spending a reasonable amount on the roads and is to be congratulated rather than criticised.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. Albert Roberts: I should not like to denigrate the efforts made by the Minister, but I take exception to the statement on what has been done between 1951 and 1959 compared with the period between 1945 and 1951. The Minister should bear in mind that between 1945 and 1951 we were concerned with very urgent matters in the housing of the people, building factories and returning to normal industrial life. It was a question of first things first.
We must also bear in mind that during that time there was the difficulty of obtaining technicians, earth-moving machinery, and so on. To be fair, the observations made by my hon. Friend the Member far Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) were quite right. Advantage has been taken only to a small degree of what has been presented, and the comparison between the years this Government have been in power and the period 1945 to 1951 could be said to be odious. Nevertheless, some advance has been made in the last two years.
This is not altogether a political problem; it is a national problem. It has been rightly said that this country and industry are in need of far better roads than we have at present. Therefore, whatever has been done in the past few years, I hope it is to be considerably accelerated. That is why we offer our observations and wish to assist. There is nothing wrong in any hon. Member criticising the Government for not doing enough, provided the criticism is constructive.
Coming to the basic facts of the problem, the Minister gave a list of what the Government are doing and intend to do, but he should bear in mind that the programme for new roads in the next four years will cost about £280 million. Is £280 million sufficient? I think it is a long way from being sufficient. As mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling), the amount of money coming from motorists is about £500 million a year. The Minister said that he was very grateful to the Prime Minister for supporting him in the expenditure of about £140 million a year on road construction and reconstruction.
I am interested in the new motor roads. If they are to serve a useful purpose, we have to contribute to the Minister ideas

on what could be done to bring about acceleration which is so necessary. These motor roads run far out into the country. If they are not to meet the needs of industry their construction will defeat their own object. They must not peter out miles from industrial areas. I can give many examples of where that will be the case. If we are to relieve the heavy traffic we now endure in cities and urban areas the motor roads must, to some extent, be properly fed to canalise traffic away from some of the inadequate roads.
When the Minister was outlining his programme he made reference to the Birmingham and Preston motorways and to the great engineering feats they represent. I look forward to seeing those completed. I am rather dismayed, however, that no reference has been made to the motor road in Yorkshire. We have the London-Birmingham road of 53 miles, which is to be completed within a schedule of 19 months. That is some achievement. The engineers dealing with that work have said quite openly that what happened to Preston by-pass will not happen to that motorway. I wonder what was in the mind of the engineers when they said that, because I believe this will be a first-class job.
I am rather sorry that the Minister has not given careful thought to this matter. Every motorist coming from London and going northwards will be tempted to use the new road, but when he gets to the end of it, how is he to get on to the Great North Road? There will be the chaos which already exists in Leicester. In the last few months, I have asked Questions of the Minister who has said in reply that the scheme is being impeded because a line cannot be defined through Leicestershire. But cannot that be overcome? In the West Riding of Yorkshire there is a very populous area in which sand and gravel is carried every day and coal from opencast workings is transported every day, but nothing is to be done in the next few years to ease the burden of that traffic. Much has been said about improvements to the Great North Road, and I accept that. But the Great North Road does not serve the West Riding. It runs through rural parts of Yorkshire. It will by-pass Doncaster and keep to the east of the West Riding. That is why local authorities in the county have got


together and put a plan to the Ministry. They are most anxious that something should be done about this problem within the next two or three years.
What I am trying to point out is that the London-Yorkshire motorway will serve no purpose unless it goes into the heart of the West Riding. I am a realist, and am not being parochial, but for the life of me I cannot understand why all these other schemes radiating from Birmingham should come before the continuing of the Yorkshire motorway into the heart of the West Riding. I hope that when he gives consideration to this matter the Minister will provide some feeders from places like Huddersfield and Halifax to join up with this motorway. After reference has been made to this matter this afternoon, I hope the Minister will not lose sight of it when dealing with the problem of the Yorkshire motorway.
As to the future, like most hon. Members, I feel that a lot can be done to relieve congestion in our cities. Only last week I boarded a bus in Parliament Street, having an appointment somewhere in London. The journey from Parliament Street to the middle of Regent Street took more than half an hour, and in the end I had to disembark and get a taxi to go down some back streets in order to reach my destination. This situation is getting worse day by day and month by month, and it has become a very serious problem not only in London but in Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds.
I wish to put a new point to the Minister. Some of our provincial towns are now taking the buses off the streets in the shopping centres. If we go along Regent Street we see people shopping whose cars are impeding the buses. It would be far better if people who wanted to go shopping left their cars off the main streets and if we reduced the number of buses using those streets. It is a great problem, but some cities in the Provinces are dealing with this serious problem. I hope that my few words will convince the Minister that we in Yorkshire are anxious that our problem shall receive due recognition.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: Some hon. Members opposite—not the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. A. Roberts)

but previous speakers from that side—have criticised the Government about the road programme, and have even accused my right hon. Friend the Minister of complacency. I would remind them, and I think it is fair to do so, that twelve years ago the then Socialist Minister of Transport announced a ten-year plan for building new roads. The first two years were to be devoted to the large arrears of maintenance work; the next three years were to see the start of major road works of new construction, and the last five years of this ambitious programme were to see a comprehensive reconstruction of the principal national routes, including motorways.
The Minister, Mr. Alfred Barnes, at that time said that the first year's work alone might run to anything up to £80 million. That is the way hon. Gentlemen opposite and, indeed, even right hon. Gentleman talked, but what really happened? In the four years between 1947 and 1951 an average of between £3 million and £3½ million a year was what the Labour Government actually spent—a total of £14 million in four years. In the whole of their six years in office, the Labour Government spent only £17 million on new construction and major improvements.
When that pathetic record of broken promises and inadequate achievement is contrasted with what my right hon. Friend is actually doing. I do not think it lies in the mouths of hon. Members opposite to criticise this Government on this issue. Of course, there were plenty of excuses, and many of them were perfectly valid excuses. There was indeed a shortage of labour, and certainly there were shortages of plant, machinery and materials. There was also a shortage of cash, owing to Socialist economic policies, but surely in the days of the Labour Government there was no shortage of planners and thinkers? Surely there was no shortage of staff in the Ministry of Transport? So why did they not at least plan the roads, even though they could not find the money and resources actually to build them?

Mr. G. R. Strauss: May I interrupt the hon. Member? He will, I am sure, remember that the Act under which the present Government is building motorways was passed by the Labour Government in 1948.

Mr. Fisher: Yes, but I am not talking about the Act. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct. I am talking about implementing the Act by actual planning. In fact, as my right hon. Friend has said, very little preparatory work was done. Just as the national till and the national larder were very nearly empty when we took over at the end of 1951—and when I went to the Ministry of Food as Parliamentary Private Secretary I remember how empty it was—so also were even the planning pigeon-holes of the Ministry of Transport. As my right hon. Friend has said, it meant that he had to start almost from the beginning, and road construction involves a great deal of preliminary planning work before actual physical work can start. I know that from a small case concerning my own constituency, which my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary may remember, of an under-pass on the Kingston by-pass.

Mr. Watkinson: I remember it, too.

Mr. Fisher: What an immense amount of time and trouble has to be taken before any building work can commence. Local interests have to be considered before a plan can be prepared. Then there is the preparation of the plan, which later has to be advertised, and time has to be allowed for objections to be made—and there are always plenty of objections —and they have to be looked at. Very likely, a public inquiry has to be held and, as a result, there may be changes in the plan. Even if there are no changes in the plan, there will almost certainly be voluminous correspondence for the local Member and the Minister, culminating, no doubt, as in my own case, in Parliamentary Questions and in time-taking deputations to see the Minister or his Parliamenatry Secretary. Finally, after all that we have to negotiate the purchase of the land, which also takes time, and the whole process in the case of a large trunk road scheme would, I should imagine, take three or four years. It is very important that we should take that amount of time, otherwise individual rights are certain to be sacrificed.

Mr. G. Wilson: I asked a Question about how long it took in different countries. The Germans said it took a maximum of twelve months, the Dutch said an average of twelve months, and our officials said that they were lucky to get it through in two years.

Mr. Fisher: That bears out what my hon. Friend has already said about the different approach here. I am saying that I think it is right that we should go into these things properly and not steam-roller individual interests, but we cannot get a substantial reduction in the time if we do that.
That is why it was very disappointing to find that the party opposite, when it left office, had not only been unable to build roads but had not even been through these time-taking preliminaries in the whole of its six years in office. By contrast, trunk road schemes for over 850 miles of new or improved highways are now being prepared by my right hon. Friend, and we are already embarked on the four-year £240 million road programme, averaging £60 million a year, and we are already spending over £40 million a year in contrast with the £14 million in four years of hon. Members opposite. I therefore feel very surprised at the sort of attack which some hon. Members have made on this matter today.
One need not go into the details of the five important arteries that are covered by the five principal projects, but we welcome very much the news of the Staines by-pass and new bridge, for which we have waited patiently for years, and the Maidenhead by-pass and new bridge. I do not know about the argument which we heard earlier about the Romans; I suppose that it may be difficult to work out comparable road programmes, in terms of cash spent, when they are separated in time by hundreds of years, but one cannot, as a matter of historical fact, recall a period when there was so much road building going on in this country as there is at this time, probably since the time of the Romans.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: Perhaps I may tell my hon. Friend that I have made that calculation and worked out that the Romans built about 4,000 miles of road over a period of about 400 years, whereas we are building about 250 miles every 10 years.

Mr. Fisher: That shows my right hon. Friend in a very favourable light, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his information.
Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) and other hon. Members—and, indeed, the


British Road Federation—consider that our expenditure is inadequate because, they allege, it still falls short of the need. One does not dispute that, of course. Expenditure on worth-while projects of any kind almost always falls short of the need. It is bound to do so because, as was indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson), we need to spend so much on so many objectives and for so many purposes.
We are spending enormous sums of money every year on education, atomic energy, housing and slum clearance, National Health and many other extremely important and worth-while objectives. Yet the keen and knowledgeable protagonist of each one of these will claim that his own particular interest is being neglected. But one cannot do everything at once without over-straining the economy and over-taxing the individual.
In that context, the assessment made by the "Highway Needs of Great Britain" Conference sponsored by the Institution of Civil Engineers in 1957 seems to me to be quite unrealistic. That assessment advocated the expenditure of £3,500 million on roads in the next twenty years. That is about £175 million a year, or about three times the present programme. I do not believe that any Minister of Transport, not even my right hon. Friend, could possibly hope to get anything like that sum out of any Chancellor of the Exchequer of any Government—Labour or Conservative.
I would certainly agree with the British Road Federation that probably the greatest need lies in the urban areas. Nothing is more irritating than to motor along fast routes only to be held up interminably as one approaches large urban areas—and still more so when one actually enters them. The acute congestion in our large cities is a very real problem, and there is no doubt that a high proportion of the available money should be spent on relieving urban traffic congestion.
I do not know whether enough emphasis is being put on this. The British Road Federation considers that about one-third of the total expenditure should be devoted to urban requirements. I do not quite know what proportion my right hon. Friend, has in mind, or whether he

gives the urban problem quite so high a priority. Something, of course, is being done. In London, the western exit, the Cromwell Road extension—a pre-war project—has at last come to fruition, and we shall soon be using the Chiswick flyover. There is the underpass at Hyde Park Corner—I did not quite hear whether my right hon. Friend gave a date for the starting of this scheme—

Mr. Watkinson: October.

Mr. Fisher: Perhaps my hon. Friend will be able to tell us later when that is expected to be completed.
I wish that something could be done soon about the London bridges over the Thames and their approaches. I know that if my hon. Friend ever drives to his constituency at Guildford on a Friday evening between 5.30 and 7.30 p.m. he will appreciate how frustrating Putney Bridge and the roads leading to and from it can become. I hope that he will give some attention to that.
With nearly five million cars on the roads and over seven million vehicles altogether —in itself, a great tribute to the prosperity of Britain under this Government—I am sure that my right hon. Friend is right to accept the challenge of our road problem.
Perhaps most significant of all is the fact that, at the time of drastic retrenchment 18 months ago, the road programme did not suffer at all. Of course, in any previous period of financial stringency the road programme has always been the very first to suffer. That is the measure of the importance that the Government attach to road development. It is, too, the measure of the strength and resolution of my right hon. Friend as Minister of Transport. I am sure that if hon. Members opposite were honest with themselves they would, when comparing the present programme with their own record, join with us in thanking my right hon. Friend for his attention to this problem, for the saving in human life, the relief of traffic congestion, and the improvement of the roads that he has undertaken, and is carrying through with such vigour.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Percy Collick: As I wish to call the Minister's attention to just one or two short points, I do not propose


to follow the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher). When I see what is being done on some of these new road works, I ask myself whether anybody on the engineering side of the Ministry of Transport has any responsibility at all for considering the interests of the pedestrians. We hear so often in this Chamber the demands of the motorists, the demands of the British Road Federation, the demands of the many vested interests—and, goodness knows, there are enough of those in the transport industry—that one begins to wonder whether we pay half enough attention either to road safety or, not less important, to the interests of the pedestrians. It may be said that all motorists are pedestrians—I only wish that they were pedestrians more frequently.
As I say, it seems that, when constructing some of the new roads, nobody in the Ministry of Transport is paying any attention at all to the interests of the pedestrians. I take as a case in point —and here I at once declare an interest, and say that I live in the neighbourhood —what is happening at the London end of the London-Birmingham road. Everybody knows that a considerable extension is being made there, and that instead of having, as was to have been the case, a road capable of carrying three lines of traffic we are now to have in effect two roads—technically perhaps one road —one carrying the up traffic and the other carrying the down traffic.
From the look of things at the moment, it appears that there will be about six lines of traffic when the road is completed. Whatever the motorists may say about that road, it is clear to me that very few have asked themselves how the pedestrians are coming along, and I want to direct the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to one or two things, and to ask him to make some inquiries.
I do not quite know where the responsibility lies. When I approached the engineer of the Middlesex County Council I was told that the county council is the agent of the Ministry of Transport. That seems to be very similar to the Preston by-pass business. Nobody seems to know just where the responsibility lies. In the case of the Preston by-pass the problem was whether the responsibility lay with the local authority,

the agents acting for the Minister, or the Minister of Transport.
If the right hon. Gentleman goes to Hendon Way he will find, first, that a good number of the residents have to suffer the inconvenience of not having level pavements. Even the Romans knew how to make level pavements, but we cannot have them. We have sloping pavements. One can understand the reason for an elevation on a road but not for one on pavements. Residents in Hendon Way are not yet so built as to have one leg longer than the other, but that is probably what they will need when walking on along some of those pavements.
When one raises the matter, one is given excuses. I do not accept them as explanations. As the hon. Member for Surbiton said, they are excuses. Some of the things he called excuses were reasons. The excuse is that they have had to raise the road so high that the pavement falls below the level of the road and the drainage arrangements demand that the pavement be elevated. Not content with creating an elevated pavement, they have now created a situation where the open water channel for the pavement is immediately outside the front gates of the houses.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) spoke about the problem of modern engineering. I cannot understand any problem of modern engineering which makes it necessary to have an open water channel immediately outside the front of these houses. If the Parliamentary Secretary goes down there, he will see exactly what is happening.
Have we completely accepted the point of view that the only people who are interested and the only people to be considered are motorists? What about bus passengers? The Parliamentary Secretary will correct me if I am wrong. One never knows much about it until it is an accomplished fact. When the new road is finished in all its grandeur, I understand there is to be a fence. I do not suppose that it will be the Prime Minister again. He has had enough of the Preston by-pass. He will not want to open the London-Birmingham end. Someone else will do that. Am I right in understanding that there will be a fence erected down the centre of the road, the purpose of which


presumably will to prevent anyone crossing? I am asking for information. I am not saying that that is a fact.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I can help the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick) and tell him that the motorways are single-purpose roads. They will be fenced on either side to prevent pedestrians, cyclists and anyone else, except motor cars, lorries, etc., travelling on them.

Mr. Collick: I am obliged to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. That seems to confirm that there will be a fence, apparently to prevent persons crossing the road. It will prevent them getting on the road. Can the Joint Parliamentary Secretary proceed from that to tell me this? When there is a bus stop, as there is in this part of Hendon Way, and passengers alight from a bus on to the pavement—I think that they have been privileged to have about three feet of pavement—

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: At Hendon it is not a motorway.

Mr. Collick: I do not know. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary can answer that. I am only posing questions. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has facilities for finding the answers. I assume that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary knows what he is talking about, and he confirms that there will be a fence.

Mr. Nugent: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member again, but he wants the information. There will be a fence on either side of the motorway proper, to prevent pedestrians crossing or going on to the motorway. There will be footpaths or roads going under or over. The part about which the hon. Member is now speaking is a road in the urban area connected on to the end of the motorway. It is not a motorway. There will be normal facilities for pedestrians.

Mr. Collick: I am relieved to hear that this is not technically a motorway until it gets further out. Therefore, there will be no fence. It is quite contrary to what I was told by the engineer. He told me on the phone that there would be a fence. I am very glad to have the assurance of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that there will not, because

what was puzzling me was how, if there was a fence, people who alighted from a bus were to cross the road. The engineer told me—but apparently he is wrong, if the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is right—that bus passengers will have to proceed to the adjoining road and get across the road in that way.
When a road is so far advanced as this road is at the London end, is it impossible for something to be done to speed up the arrangements by which pedestrians can be allowed to cross the road safely? When the road is finished, at the junction of The Vale and Hendon Way there will presumably be some facility—a pedestrian crossing or some such means—to enable pedestrians to cross.
I know that there has been no work taking place on that part of the road for months past. Why has it not been possible to make some provision for pedestrians to cross the road at that point? There is a regular traffic of womenfolk in the area who take their babies to the clinic and who have to cross this busy road. There will be six lines of traffic. It is true that one-half is not yet open. I am pleading that there should be some consideration for the pedestrian and that there should be a pedestrian crossing or something of the kind to enable people to cross the road safely.
Thousands of people will be very grateful if the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will give some attention to the problem. If there is nobody in his Ministry responsible for considering the interests of pedestrians, which seems to be the case at the moment, will he appoint someone in the new roads department with that obligation?

Captain Richard Pilkington: Does the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick) realise that under Conservative prosperity the only pedestrians who will exist soon will be those who have parked their cars and are walking to their destination?

Mr. Collick: If that is the ideal of Conservative prosperity, it is a very different prosperity from that which I have in mind. Is that the great E1 Dorado we are to live to see, in which people are unwilling to use the legs which nature has given them when they have the facility and opportunity of using them? However, I do not wish to digress.
This is one of London's problems. If any hon. Member stands on this road in the morning, he will see private cars pouring into London each with one occupant. Hon. Members should ask themselves how much cubic space that one person occupies on the roads of this country whilst reaching the centre of London and then ask themselves whether it is any wonder that we have traffic problems in London.
When shall we reach saturation point? When will something be done? Or shall we reach the stage, which the hon. and gallant Member for Poole (Captain Pilkington) seemed to think was the ideal, when everybody will be doing that, and that will be the ideal of Conservative prosperity? What an ideal. Take it back to Poole. We do not want it in London. That is half of our problem now. Let somebody in the Ministry pay some attention to the interests of pedestrians. If they do so, they will have the thanks and the blessing of pedestrians, who seem to be far more long-suffering than motorists.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: I should like to dissociate myself at once from the conception of the Tory El Dorado in which everyone in the country possesses a motor car. I feel that that should be stated straight away in answer to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick).
Hon. Members opposite have not been as generous as they might in generally acknowledging the programme which my right hon. Friend has unfolded today. It is, as they concede, visible and tangible, and, all political expediency apart, I think that a little more might have been found to say in favour of it. One cannot motor anywhere without finding traces of it. Indeed, one can be slightly held up by it. The further one goes the more impressive the evidence becomes—and, perhaps, the later one is as a result.
The Minister himself said that much is owed to his predecessors; he has had the resources which they were denied. That is always said of every achievement. I think that it was said of Lord Montgomery of Alamein that he merely had what others had not had. I do not think that this is really so here. I suspect that my right hon. Friend carries a little more

weight in the Cabinet than many of his predecessors did, and moreover, the disposal of the resources has been his responsibility. He has not lacked advice. Some of it, if he had taken it, would have failed to produce the results we have today.
There is no need for a speech stressing the needs of the problem. This is a subpect on which many people are willing to exercise their imagination and urge that the public purse should be given free rein. There are few subjects in which one can juggle more splendidly with statistics—there were X cars yesterday, there will be Y cars tomorrow, which positively means that we must spend Z thousands of millions of pounds more on the roads.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) pointed out, the outside figure is £3,500 million in twenty years, according to the British Road Federation, the activities of which as a pressure group, I must say, in parenthesis, really form a separate subject for study on their own. "Faster and faster" is the cry. The Minister is surrounded by Lewis Carroll duchesses. I do not propose to make a "duchess" speech. I feel, really, that the rôle of dustman is indicated. While acknowledging the needs and the achievements, I feel that there are still some important lids which must be lifted.
I hope that we shall not lose perspective. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will not do so. If I may put it in this way, I hope that we shall not consider him wrong if he allows perspective to prevail. This is one matter in which public taste, needs and requirements have outstripped our basic capital resources. It is not the only one, but it is probably the largest of all today. The vital factor is the ratio of vehicles to road resources. This ratio, of course, is higher now than it was before the war, and it is probably the highest ever known.
I am inclined to think that the ratio will go higher yet. The crucial question is, "At what ratio do we aim?" I have never seen this question scientifically anticipated, but it seems to me to be a most important matter. Given more or less unrestricted development in the motor industry, to maintain even the present ratio of vehicles to roads will lead to an enormous consumption not only of money and manpower but of land, which very few people, I think, fully appreciate.
The Ministry's traffic count gave an increase of 19 per cent. in two years, between 1954 and 1956, and an increase of over one-quarter—28 per cent.—in private cars. Every hon. Member can produce statistics to the same effect. I note with approval that my right hon. Friend has now a planning section in the Ministry of Transport which is, as I understand, to anticipate what the country's road system ultimately will need to be. I do not think that it is any too soon to have such a section; indeed, in some ways, I feel that it is a little late.
It is appropriate here to utter a warning about what the limits may be. Our thinking in this matter, as in many others, is infected by the American example. But, in the American example, and, indeed, the example of many countries in the land mass of Europe, there are no real comparisons to be made with conditions in this country. Vision is difficult because the main pressure groups, the British Road Federation and the Society of Motor Manufacturers, are on the side of grand expansion. They tend to produce plans which take no cognisance at all of the colossal competitive pressure on land which has prevailed in this country since the war. I am thinking not only of agricultural land, of which we have lost 50,000 acres since the war. I am thinking also of the fiercely competitive claims made by other national institutions and bodies. In an island of 50 million people living on 50 million acres no field of development can he altogether unrestricted.
We have had to impose a restraint on many important features of our development, particularly since the war, and I believe that it is not impossible that something not yet envisaged by the House will have to be imposed on the motor vehicle in the long distant future. The sooner we recognise this the better. If restraint and a measure of discipline more than the country now believes possible will be needed, it is very important to anticipate it. If it is imposed retrospectively, those concerned will find themselves in very serious trouble all round.
I am told that industry and commerce depend upon fast, unimpeded road communication to the tune of thousands of millions of pounds of expenditure. If that is really so, then I must conclude that the assessment of our road and rail

potential has somewhere gone awry. I do not want to go into that now, but, at least, road plans which appear to assume the steady decline to the point of disappearance of the railways from the point of carrying freight and passengers must surely be false. I do not accept the dazzling prospect of roads on the American pattern. The practical policy, which I suggest my right hon. Friend is trying to follow, is to make the best use of the roads in existence, with a good deal of expensive improvisation. The A.1, the Great North Road, and the road which now brings one into London Airport, are two very good examples of that.
There have been, until now, two main parties in the race, the road engineer and the motor engineer. It is a very unequal race, because the first, the road engineer, is subject to many limitations imposed by public policy, finance, rival claims, and so on. The second is largely unrestricted. Now a third influence, perhaps the most important of all, is arising. I refer to the traffic engineer. He will prove an indispensable adjunct, and he has been neglected for far too long.
As one hon. Member opposite said, it is quite fruitless to lay down fast express ways which simply link up a series of bottlenecks. The Americans learnt that the hard way; they produced roads along which one could travel at 60 miles in the hour, yet conditions in their cities squander the money which they spent on those express routes. We must, therefore, apply ourselves to the science of moving large loads of traffic through less space than it needs in the large cities and towns of our island. Ideally, all cities, large towns and counties should have a traffic engineer—not a "back room boy" but a man with real status and authority and the training to achieve results. I have no doubt that this may be a most important development.
I warn my right hon. Friend that the traffic engineer is the alternative to the bulldozer. One cannot bulldoze one's way through the problem when one reaches our towns and cities. The cost of razing blocks alone is prohibitive, and one always finds, as my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton reminded us, that one strikes buildings of historic merit and the like which will be tenaciously defended to the last ditch, with delay to one's whole programme as a result. I


can only hope that the traffic engineer, if, or when, he comes, will enjoy a higher status and more authority than that rather neglected individual, the highway architect.
Due, perhaps, to lack of experience, we have fallen a long way behind in our mid-twentieth century roads and bridges on what I might term architectural distinction. Architects are used but, certainly in some authorities, they are far too subordinate and they are often employed or consulted too late. In contemplating a road programme even of the scale we have now, which I regard as adequate, we must not leave out of account the fact that we are a small and reputedly beautiful country, and we must not ignore the effects upon it of some of the things we are trying to do. It is really idle to talk about doubling our standard of living in twenty-five years if, at the end of it all, we are simply to find ourselves enjoying it in a desert of concrete and mechanical clutter. That is something which the more grandiose plans art apt to overlook. In saying that these things call for a fresh appraisal, I do not say that this is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend alone. There is much here for the civic conscience. Until that is stirred, we shall not get very far. Given architectural imagination, I see no reason why the giant express ways or motorways which we are to have should not have some sort of majesty and the small projects some sort of harmony which many of them now lack. The scope in this sphere has been neglected.
Let me take trees as an example. The way to break a great ribbon of road is not with trees at exact intervals along the centre, but with clumps of trees on one side or the other. That may be disputed by some hon. Members, but that, broadly, is the sort of approach which we need. It will be said that this is quite irrelevant to the practical, physical and urgent industrial needs of this country. That sort of argument has gone a long way towards destroying quite unnecessarily much of this country, particularly since the war.
That is the argument of the Bourbons. We cannot discuss this problem intelligently wholly in time of cost, width and length. Those are not the only factors in highway construction. There is far more to it than that. We must apply in this

sphere, with upwards of 7 million vehicles now charging down upon us, not merely constructional considerations but civilised considerations. There is need to apply here, which we have not done, the oldest political argument in the world about liberty and licence.
I ask hon. Members most earnestly not to be beguiled by the persuasive schools who want to criss-cross the countryside with gigantic motorways which we cannot afford in many instances and to convert Hyde Park into a great car park. I do not think that these schools will prevail. I hope that they do not. But it is against these technological fantasies that the current programme is sometimes made to appear ridiculously inadequate. In fact, it is not inadequate. It is far more realistic than some of its critics would make out. We must measure the needs. We must try to match them by intelligent use of our existing resources. We must bear in mind that this island is for the man, not for the motor, and that at the end of it all we still have to live on it.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. A. E. Hunter: I am pleased to have the opportunity of taking part in this debate. I do not want to follow the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) in great detail, except to say that I think he is wrong about Hyde Park. I do not want to defend the Minister, because he can do that himself, but I do not think that he is attempting to turn Hyde Park into a race track or a car park. The Minister intends to take the cars underneath Hyde Park and to leave the park the beautiful place that it is for the people to enjoy. Schemes like the one envisaged for the Hyde Park underpass are needed in this modern age. We need more of them.
Hon. Members on both sides agree that something must be done about roads. I do not think that it is any good harking back to what was done from 1945 to 1950. After all, there was the war from 1939 to 1945, which resulted in a big hold up in road plans. I also remind hon. Members opposite that very little was done between 1930 and 1939, when 2 million people were unemployed and when there was scope for great road schemes which could have been carried out much more cheaply than they can now and which should have been undertaken. The public recognises the urgent


need of more modern roads with safeguards for the pedestrian.
Gallup polls are a fairly reliable guide to public opinion. In a recent Gallup poll, the News Chronicle asked members of the public what they would like to spend money on if they were Chancellor of the Exchequer and had £50 million to spend. Forty-five per cent. of the people said that they would like the money to be spent on assistance for old-age pensioners. It is interesting to note that roads came next with 20 per cent., which means that people recognise the road problems which face the nation today.
Modern life and industry depends to an increasing extent on the roads. Roads which were built centuries ago to take the horse and cart are not suitable. They are entirely out of date for the motor car, the motor coach and the industrial lorry. Day after day, in many towns and urban centres, we see heavy lorries carrying important loads mixed up in traffic with shoppers' cars, tradesmen's vans and bicycles. We all know that as soon as we have a fine weekend people use their cars to go to the coast or the countryside. We all agree that that is very desirable and that it does the people an enormous amount of good. It is estimated that today one family in four has a car. I am pleased that that has come about, because it shows that since 1939 there has been a rise in the standard of living. The experts estimate that in ten years' time the number of cars will have doubled and that probably 50 per cent. of the families in this country will own a car. Therefore, one can see the great problem which faces us in going ahead with our plans for the roads.
Another point which we should consider is the need to go forward with plans for road safety. I have often mentioned the necessity of road safety being considered in any road scheme. To some extent the Minister recognises that problem. I have been with a deputation to the Minister on this point and he recognised the need of taking pedestrians from motorways and roads by building pedestrian subways. I urge the Minister to pay a great deal of attention to road safety. Last week, in reply to a Question of mine, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that a big campaign would commence in April, which will be started

by the Lord Mayor of London, with a conference of local authorities and other national organisations. I hope that local authorities and road safety campaign committees will make a great effort this year to ensure that the roads are made safe for the pedestrian and the motorist.
Road casualty figures have been mentioned. In 1958, 5,970 people were killed, 69,166 seriously injured and 224,631 slightly injured, which makes a total of 299,767, an increase of 9½ per cent. This shows that as more oars come on to the road the casualties are increasing. I am sad to say that there has been a steady increase in road casualties over the last few years. Since my time in the House, three hon. Members on this side—all motorists—have died as a result of road accidents. Therefore, this problem affects not only the pedestrian but the motorist as well. I appeal to the Minister to do all he can in the interests of road safety.
In reply to a Question, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that in 1958 110 people were killed and 800 were seriously injured on uncontrolled pedestrian crossings. This shows an increase on the figures for 1957. These figures apply to zebra crossings on which pedestrians expect to walk with safety. It is true that the Parliamentary Secretary said that the figure for accidents 50 yards from pedestrian crossings had dropped, but the figures show that even on uncontrolled pedestrian crossings there is great danger to people crossing the roads. I would therefore like to see the Minister include in his Estimates provision for more pedestrian subways. These subways should be built with the new ramps, so that mothers may easily take their prams across the roads.
I should also like to see traffic lights installed on pedestrian crossings. It seems to me, from the figures that I have quoted, that there is a danger on these uncontrolled pedestrian crossings. The provision of traffic lights would help road safety, and save human lives.
All hon. Members and the nation must be alarmed, concerned and distressed at the great slaughter that is taking place on the roads. We want the new roads, and we want them for safety. I hope that that will be the Minister's watchword. In this modern age the number of motor cars, motor lorries and motor


coaches is likely to increase. This is a national problem and it should be solved in a national way. We should not just push only local road programmes. We want national roads to the great centres of population and to the coasts. At the same time, wanting the roads, I appeal to the Minister, in the interest of human life, to use the words "road safety" on every possible occasion and to make the future roads of Britain safe for the pedestrian and the motorist.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Russell: My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), in his characteristic style, suggested that we should put a brake on the road programme. At least, he said that what was being done was adequate. He mentioned the terrific amount of land that is used in road building and the amount of damage that might be done to our cities if we build a great many urban motorways. I sympathise with him in that view, but I should like to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister whether everything possible is being done to use the space over the railways.
I know that it is probably very difficult to build a road which would clear the tops of railway bridges on the two-track lines. I understand that part of the South Wales—Midlands road near Smethwick is being built over a viaduct and is costing £1 million a mile, but I imagine that that saves a good deal of land. I hope that every attention is being given to the possibility of similar plans elsewhere. The main line to Paddington, over which there are not many bridges, is a good example, though the existence of the Great West Road may mean that a new road of that type is unnecessary in that case.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: We are all concerned about the use of land, but to put into perspective what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), may I ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware that since the war we have brought into use about 2 million extra acres of land for agriculture, whereas my right hon. Friend will use only about 5,000 to 10,000 acres in his present roads programme?

Mr. Russell: I am glad that my hon. Friend has made that point, but we ought

to make every possible use of space over the railways. Mention has already been made of the number of cars containing only one person which are driven into London every day. I know that my right hon. Friend favours the idea that cars should not be brought into London, but should be parked in car parks at railway stations on the outskirts of the city. Could not more use be made of the great amount of space above the railway in West Hampstead, particularly the space above the Metropolitan Line and the old Great Central Line in one direction and the old Midland Line to St. Pancras in the other? An enormous amount of space is available in places like that for the erection of car parks. Use might be made of West Hampstead station or Finchley Road station on the Bakerloo Line by people who wished to complete their journey into London.
My right hon. Friend has said that it is uneconomic to build car parks over railways unless other use is also made of the space. The West London Air Terminal is a case in point. Could not encouragement be given to the building of offices on these sites, with car parks either above or underneath the offices but both built over the railways? Great use could be made of waste space of that kind. Not only would that be useful, but it would remove many of the present eyesores.
The problem of building modern motorways will be very thorny indeed. Is tunnelling entirely out of the question, because of cost? I saw somewhere the other day that the idea of an A-ring road has been revived, though not necessarily by my right hon. Friend. I believe that the L.C.C. has been thinking again of providing an A-ring road, not along the line of the Marylebone Road, as originally planned, but slightly to the south of that line.
It fills one with appalling thoughts of the amount of property which would have to be pulled down. Would not tunnelling, expensive though that is, be cheaper? I hope that that idea will be investigated and will not be completely ruled out. A tunnel is to be bored for the new underground line from Victoria northwards by Green Park to King's Cross. That will be expensive, but would it be very much more expensive to tunnel a road? It might be cheaper than acquiring huge and expensive property


and paying compensation to the displaced owners.
I reinforce what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G Wilson) about the inevitability of a certain amount of delay in road building. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right in giving full weight to the rights of individuals and insisting upon local inquiries being held where there are objections. It would be a sorry day for this country if we started to steamroller measures like that without giving thought to those disturbed by them.
What is known as "arcading" as a means of widening streets at possibly lower cost has been mentioned. About ten years ago, the London Counties Traffic Advisory Committee issued a report in which one of its recommendations for relieving congestion in London was the construction of arcades in some of the streets. I should have thought that that was a less expensive method of widening a street than pulling down the whole of one side of it. It means taking 6 ft. or so out of the ground floor of buildings and putting the pavement back a corresponding distance to widen the road, with the rest of the building remaining intact. In that way, a great deal of money could be saved, compared with the cost of pulling down the whole side of a street and rebuilding it again at a distance further back. I hope that we shall have some information about that in due course.
Finally, there is the question of the width of pavements. There are a number of examples in the West End of London, and no doubt in other cities, of enormously wide pavements on which very few people walk even during the most congested periods of the day. I know that my right hon. Friend recognises that that is so in many places and that he has given examples of areas where it will be put right, but many local authorities do not seem to be alive to this question yet.
Only recently, at Seymour Place, in St. Marylebone, running roughly parallel with the Edgware Road, the pavement on one side of the road has been relaid, either to exactly the same width or even to a greater width than it was before, while the road in between is no wider although a number of houses have been built on the side of the road opposite to

the wide pavement with a resultant increase in the number of cars parked on that side. It seems senseless to relay a pavement of considerable width where few pedestrians use it and to leave the road in a congested condition.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will try to persuade local authorities who do not seem to appreciate the waste involved in having unnecessarily wide pavements to put that matter right, and to make sure that they are not wasting space which is not used by pedestrians but could he used by motor vehicles.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Moyle: In the few remaining minutes, before the principals get at each other's throats, I should like to make one or two observations about street lighting. I should have thought that the Minister would have had his eye on the next General Election, but I must say that he did not come into harbour this afternoon with the bouyancy and cherubic look of a Cornish seaman. He came in looking very much like a "sourpuss" and he took in very bad grace one or two interjections from this side of the House.
The right hon. Gentleman must forgive us if we are a little sceptical, because we recollect only too vividly the queue of Ministers who turned up at the Dispatch Box in January and February, 1955, and made an announcement similar to that which he made this afternoon. The Minister's roads programme that he announced this afternoon was qualified either by his saying that he had been authorised to say this about it by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or that he hoped that it would be put into operation. Neither authorisation nor hope is any basis for execution. We want to know what road schemes have been put into operation. That is the difference between our attitude and the hopes of the Minister. If I may say so, the Minister's hopefulness, based upon the Government's programme, is not a very good augury for the immediate future.
On the question of street lighting, I should have thought that if the Minister had wanted to make history during his term of office, here was the opportunity. The Ministry's Road Research Laboratory has told him of the importance of this. Did the House ever know of


such chaos in this country where we have virtually 8,000 lighting authorities, if we include the parish councils? A county council is not a lighting authority, but a parish council is. The Minister himself has no authority over lighting, but the parish councils have. If we are to have anything like uniformity and continuity of street lighting upon the trunk roads, it can only be done by the Minister of Transport taking his courage into his hands and getting on with the job.
It is fantastic that out of a total of £12 million spent on street lighting in 1956–57, the total spent by the Minister's Department was only £133,000. There is not a single expert authority which does not argue that the direct effect of improving street lighting by way of uniformity and continuity would mean a substantial reduction in road accidents during night time.
May I say to the Minister, in conclusion, that if there is one aspect of this problem of traffic efficiency which is more important than any other it is the problem of street lighting. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman, knowing the facts, would have been the type of Minister to get on with this job and get the Government to support him in bringing order and efficiency out of the present deplorable field of confusion, inefficiency and chaos.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: In reply to the questions and criticisms advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies), the Minister has told us today about his roads programme and the great extension in road building which is taking place and will take place. No one in this House will want to deny for a moment that roads are now being built on a larger scale than probably ever before, that many of them are being built with speed and efficiency. The Minister and the Government can take such credit as they care to for what they have done to bring about a resumption of road building on a large scale.
What worries us is whether this road building programme, much bigger than it was a few years ago, is big enough. Is it adequate? Will it, in ten years' time, be sufficient to meet the needs of the country? That is what is puzzling

us today. The Government presumably believe that their roads programme is wholly adequate to the needs likely to come upon it. We do not believe that. We believe that unless it is greatly enlarged it will lead to conditions of constant congestion, traffic delays far beyond anything we are experiencing today which will be a grave burden on industry and bring intolerable hardship to all private users of the roads whether they travel in buses or in private cars.
The Minister talks of the Government desiring to see a car owning democracy. That is very fine. But it is also necessary to have conditions that will make the cars mobile. It is no use having a large number of cars for a large number of people if, most of the time, they are stationary either in their garages or on the roads. What is happening today is that the number of cars is increasing to such an extent—whether due to the Government or to world conditions—that it will bring about, unless there is a change in the Government's roads programme, a grave situation in a few years' time.
What is the test of the adequacy of the Government's programme? Of course, there can be no final test. There is no arithmetical calculation by which we can say that so much should be spent, that that will be enough and that anything less than that will be insufficient. We are here in a realm of argument and doubt, but I think that we can come to some effective conclusions on the facts as we know them.
I suggest that it is not the slightest good comparing the present roads programme with that of the Labour Government during the years 1945 to 1951, when it was hardly existent. For reasons that we all know, the resources of the country would not permit it at that time. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the Conservative Party in the House was then attacking the Labour Government for doing too much, for over spending the capital resources of the country, and I do not think that there was any suggestion on their part that we should spend more on roads.
On the contrary, they were constantly demanding that we should cut down our capital investment, that we were doing too much. I would point out to some of those


who criticised the Labour Government today for not having done anything, that this is not true. The Labour Government laid the ground plan for the future big roads programme. They passed the Trunk Roads Ad in 1946 and the Special Roads Act in 1949—I wrongly called it the Motorways Act previously—and it is under those two Acts that most of the big roads are now being built by the present Government. So we did everything possible in the circumstances of the time.
It is now said that detailed road schemes had not been worked out by the Labour Government subsequently, my reply is that the broad lines of development were laid down and the duty of preparing the details rests primarily with the local authorities, as we have been told when discussing the Preston By-pass. If we are now told that the local authorities did not consider the details of their road schemes, I am surprised to hear it.
I know that the Labour Government at the time—I was for a short time at the Ministry—were most anxious that this should proceed as rapidly as possible. If they did not do so, it was not the fault of the Government of the time. It was the responsibility of the local authorities. My point is that it is silly, in trying to judge the adequacy of the Government's present road policy, to compare it with what happened in the early post-war years. We have to consider what the needs of the roads are likely to be in ten years' time.
Here we have some facts on which to base our views. We know that the numbers of cars coming on to the roads are increasing by about 8 per cent. a year. We know that in 1966 the number of cars on the roads is likely to be doubled. If this trend continues, and I see no reason why it should not, instead of having 7 million vehicles on the roads as in 1957, in 1966 there are likely to be 14 million. We also have it on the authority of the Road Research Laboratory that doubling the number of cars on the roads is likely to quadruple the delays. I imagine that was worked out scientifically and, in any case, it is common sense.
This means that unless something drastic is done, every half-hour delay owing to bad roads, crossings, and so on, which occurs today on any journey, will be two hours in ten years' time. This will be an appalling burden on industry and

will make our roads almost impassable. There will be no pleasure for those who want to use them for that purpose and the burden on industry will be excessive. So it seems to me that the programme now being put forward, admirable as it is in many ways, is hopelessly inadequate to deal with the situation which will arise in 1966.
The other test which we are entitled to apply in judging the adequacy of the Government's roads programme is the proportion of the national resources which will be spent on roads for some time ahead. From the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman today, it appears that the amount of money to be spent by the Government and the local authorities together on new construction—I am not dealing with maintenance—will be about £100 million a year.
Now, £100 million a year spent on the roads is a large sum, but is it anything like enough when we remember that the amount of money to be spent over the next ten years on our power industries is £500 million a year for new capital investment? It seems to me that since the number of road users will double during that period, and because the roads today are already seriously congested, the proportion of our capital expenditure on new roads is, on any comparative grounds, unlikely to be sufficient.
Therefore, we believe that the present roads programme is not good enough. We do not accept the Minister's view that it is the most the industry can do. We believe that it should be substantially increased during the coming year and we are not satisfied, from what the Minister has told us today, that the increase will take place. And it is primarily because of our fear for the future that we asked for this Supplementary Estimate to be discussed in the House today.
I turn to another subject which I consider important and which is directly connected with the building of roads. It is the failure of the Minister to synchronise with this building programme the necessary measures to keep down the accidents that are likely to occur upon the roads. I refer particularly to the sloth which has characterised his action in implementing the provisions of the 1956 Act for the testing of road vehicles.
In the few minutes I have in which to develop this argument, I will condense the facts, but I suggest to the House that this


matter is exceedingly important because the lives of hundreds of people a year are at stake. When the 1956 Act was discussed in Committee, the present Minister, all honour to him, threw over the policy of his predecessor and accepted the principle of the need for the compulsory testing of road vehicles. The right hon. Gentleman did so on the following grounds. He said that as a result of the voluntary tests which had taken place at Hendon it had been found that the number of defective cars on the roads was substantial.
The Minister said that 6,500 cars were submitted for voluntary testing. Out of those 72 per cent. were proved to have one major defect or more, that 28 per cent. of the pre-1945 cars had defective brakes, that 47 per cent. had steering not up to standard. And none of the standards were excessively high. The Minister also said, and we all agreed with him, that if the state of motor cars using the road could be improved there would be, in his words, a sensible effect on the number of accidents.
We have plenty of evidence of the extent of that "sensible effect". It shows that where compulsory testing of vehicles takes place, as it has done in many parts of the United States, there follows an average reduction of 10 per cent. in the number of accidents. We have also the evidence of our own Road Research Laboratory, which stated, after a study of the matter, that in 20 per cent. of the accidents in this country some defective mechanism is a relevant factor. It did not state that the accidents were caused by defective mechanism but, in its own words, this was a contributory factor. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to say, in view of all this evidence, that 10 per cent. of road accidents are attributable to a mechanical defect, such as steering out of line, or inefficient brakes.
We go on from that to the fact that 6,000 people are killed on the roads every year. This means that if defective mechanisms were eliminated, 10 per cent. of those 6,000 people would be saved. Now, 600 people saved are equivalent to 12 a week, of whom two or three will be children. Not only would 12 lives be saved, but 120 serious injuries would be avoided. Those are facts which are generally accepted, and in view of the appalling

slaughter which is taking place on the roads, some inevitable but some avoidable, one would have thought that the Minister would have proceeded immediately to implement the vehicle-testing provisions of the Act with a sense of urgency.
Admittedly, it could not be put into operation in a few months. No one thinks that this could be done. It would take a little time to get the organisation operating. How much time? I suppose that everyone here would say that the Minister could have put it into operation, if he had desired to do so with a sense of urgency, within eighteen months of the passing of the Act.
The Act was passed in the spring of 1956. Ever since then, I and many others who are interested in this matter have been pressing the Minister about the timing of the implementation of the Act. I will give the House the answers given to me by the right hon. Gentleman. I first asked in November, 1956, when the Act was likely to be implemented. The Minister replied:
Much work has gone into the preparation of detailed proposals for the testing of vehicles …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1956; Vol. 560, c. 1736.]
I am quoting only the really relevant parts of his Answers.
Then, a year after the Act had come into force, I asked in April, 1957, when the Minister was likely to implement this Act. I must remind the House that it was agreed that to start with it would only be possible to put the Act into partial operation, testing those cars which had been on the roads for more than ten years, then gradually bringing in all cars.
In April, 1957, I asked the same question and the right hon. Gentleman told me that by then discussions with representatives of the industry and of local authorities on the detailed proposals for the organisation of compulsory tests were proceeding satisfactorily. That seemed all well and good. It was a little slow, since a year had passed, but I was very patient. On 5th June, 1957, I had an optimistic reply. Everything was to be plain sailing. The right hon. Gentleman said:
I cannot yet say exactly when I shall be able to make a start on compulsory testing, but it will be as early next year as I can manage".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th June, 1957; Vol. 571, c. 1233.]


That meant early in 1958, which was rather longer than I had hoped, but which was at least definite.
In October, 1957, I asked again and he said that lie hoped that the scheme would come into operation in the following year, having first said that it would come into operation early in 1958. I awaited 1958, and in January of that year I asked the question again. The right hon. Gentleman now began to talk about delays, discussions, and so on. He said:
Further discussions have taken place with the motoring organisations and with bodies representing motor traders who will he eligible for appointment as authorised examiners".—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 22nd January, 1958; Vol. 580, c. 1048.]
A White Paper was published in 1958 and again I asked what the delay was and when the scheme would come into operation. The Minister then said that it would come into operation at the end of 1958. In July, 1958, he said:
Legal difficulties have arisen over the free retest referred to in the White Paper …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July, 1958; Vol. 592, c. 417.]
I asked whether the legal difficulties meant that the Act would not come into operation by the end of the year. The right hon. Gentleman replied that he hoped that that would not be the case, in spite of the legal difficulties. When he explained those to us, they seemed highly technical and easy to overcome. There was no question of having to have another Act of Parliament, or anything of that sort.
Finally, in November of last year, I again asked why the scheme was not in operation and I was given this delaying reply:
… I expect to be ready to invite applications for appointment as authorised examiners and designated councils later this month.
That was November of last year, and he was only then about to start making appointments of various examiners. He went on to say:
Inspection of the premises and equipment of the large number of applicants expected to respond to this invitation is likely to take about four months.
That brings us to the middle of this year.
During this period Regulations will he made.
Now comes the most extraordinary sentence:
I propose to allow reasonable time thereafter before making it an offence for any

vehicle to be on the roads without a test certificate. I hope, therefore, to start progressively, from about the middle of next year"—
that is this year—
to make it obligatory for vehicles over ten years old to have a test certificate".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th November, 1958; Vol. 594. c. 939–40.]
I do not know why this period is needed, since it is not the case that people are to be punished if their cars are found to have defective steering, defective brakes, or some other defect. It is simply that those whose cars are found to have a defect will be told that they are endangering lives, including their own. I should have thought that a delay of three and a half years was sufficient and that no further warning period was necessary and that the Act should be brought into operation as early as possible.
I have described this extraordinary story of delay in detail. As I have already said, the implementation of this legislation would save 600 lives a year. That is more than double the total number of casualties in Cyprus since the beginning of the trouble—including Greeks, Turks and British.
It is difficult to introduce a personal note, but I must remind the Minister that had the Act been in operation a year or a year and a half ago, our late esteemed colleague, Sidney Dye, might have been alive today, as it appeared at the inquest that there was some defect in his car. He was only one and there are hundreds of others. I put it to the House that the delay is unreasonable and that the Government have been guilty of consistent neglect in this matter and that the blame rests fairly on the Minister of Transport.
I do not for a moment suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is indifferent to the deaths on the road and not anxious to do everything possible to prevent them. It may be that he is too occupied with other matters, but the responsibility rests with him. It is perfectly clear that the delay has been unconscionably unreasonable and that if he had tackled the matter with urgency he could have overcome the difficulties long ago. I have the strongest complaint about his inaction in this matter.
The damage has been done, and, in that deaths have unnecessarily occurred, that damage is, unfortunately, irreparable. We must now be concerned to


see that there are not further unnecessary fatal accidents. I therefore urge the right hon. Gentleman, with all the force I can, to take action now and during the next few weeks to take the requisite steps to bring the Act into operation, if possible before the August Bank Holiday when there will be so many people on the roads and when there will be so many old crocks on the roads, which, as we all know, are particularly dangerous. If he is not able to do that, then I ask for a positive undertaking that there will be no further postponement of his last promise to make the relative part of the 1956 Act operative by the middle of this year.

6.37 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): The debate has covered many topics in this half day, and if I am not able to deal with them all in my reply now, I hope that the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen concerned will forgive me, for I shall certainly do so in correspondence afterwards.
I begin by answering the very important points raised by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) about vehicle testing. I say straight away that my right hon. Friend and I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for this scheme, but I do not accept his strictures. The scheme will make a valuable contribution to road safety and I believe that there will be a valuable saving of lives. That is why we framed it.
I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman in what he said about unnecessary delay and I want to comment on the course of the preparations. This is a most complicated scheme both in its design and in the negotiations with the trade and in overcoming all kinds of surprising legal difficulties which we have encountered. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that in all the two-and-a-quarter years I have been at the Ministry I have been struggling with it and I have not wasted any time. We have met one difficulty after another, but the work is now proceeding satisfactorily.
The garages are now in process of inspection for authorisation. Invitations were issued last December and more than 12,000 applicants have been received, including 50 from local authorities. By the

end of last month, 8,800 garages had been inspected and 3,900 found suitable for appointment. Only 240 have been rejected, but, unfortunately, many garage proprietors seem not to read the application forms, and so it will be necessary to inspect about 5,000 again after various defects of equipment and so on have been put right.
Before we can start the testing scheme officially we have to see that we have enough garages authorised to get a comprehensive spread over the country so that all car drivers whose vehicles are liable to test can get one carried out without undue travel or inconvenience.
The official testing of cars which are ten years old or more is expected to involve over 2 million cars. We still hope to stick to the schedule which we have announced. We hope that it will be possible to start testing by the middle of the summer and if we can possibly start it a week or two earlier we certainly shall. We hope to circularise for comment the draft regulations for the first part of the scheme soon after Easter. The right hon. Gentleman and the remainder of the House, which I know is very interested in this matter, can be assured that my right hon. Friend and I will do everything we can to accelerate this scheme and to bring it into operation.
As soon as the testing stations are open we shall proceed with the regulations covering what the motorist has to do and we shall announce what is the interval before all these tests must be completed, after which it will be an offence for an untested vehicle over ten years old to be on the roads. After that we shall link it with the licensing. We want to bring the Scheme into operation as fast as we can. My right hon. Friend and I are certain that it will make a most valuable contribution to road safety. Apart from the fact that I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there has been unreasonable delay, I thank him for this enthusiasm.
I turn now to some of the points which have been raised in the debate. The hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) spoke on street lighting with his customary enthusiasm. He made a very good point. It struck me that, with his shining character, as he advocated his case he shone like a good deed in a naughty world, although some of the things he said to my right hon. Friend


and myself struck me as a little of the naughty kind. We will, however, let them pass. My right hon. Friend and I are very much aware of the problem which he raised, and we have been doing what we can to encourage lighting authorities to get together. I hope that good work will result from that, especially in the London area.
I should particularly like to thank the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) for a very helpful speech on road safety. I know well his strong feelings about it and the support which he gives to road safety work. We certainly want all the support we can get from right hon. and hon. Members as well as from everyone else. It is a great help to local authorities if they have the support of their Members of Parliament in their road safety campaigns, which present difficult problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) asked me about the progress of the other three major projects. Dealing with the scheme for the Channel Ports, the line of the 25-mile Medway motor road was fixed last September and preparatory work by the consulting engineers is going on. We hope that work on the bridge over the Medway will be started in about a year's time, and the road will follow after that. My hon. Friend also asked about the Midland-South Wales road. The Ross Spur motor road is now being built and it should be finished by the end of next year. This will be linked with the Birmingham area by 27 miles of motorway. A draft order for this has been published and objections are under consideration. That is a very important link which will by-pass some very bad spots in the area.
Other improvements on that route to South Wales on which work is in train or will be started soon include the rebuilding of the Heads of the Valleys Road and the by-pass of Ross itself. As for the South Wales radial road, the House heard the statement which I made last week about the Severn Bridge.
The Chiswick fly-over is due to be completed this August, and from the end of the Chiswick fly-over the radial will start with the elevated highway over the Great West Road, running out to Langley in Buckinghamshire. The draft order has been published. We hope to

start this year on the construction of the Maidenhead by-pass to motorway standards, and the Slough-Maidenhead by-pass will follow after that. This gives my hon. Friend the Member for Truro the account which he wanted.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick) spoke about pedestrians. I can assure him that the pedestrians are just as much in our minds, especially in towns, as the motorists. In all the major improvement schemes, and indeed in the minor improvement schemes, on which we are engaged, the movement of pedestrians is just as carefully catered for as that of the motorists. Usually we are able to achieve what is called segregation, a curious word which simply means that pedestrians can pass in safety on a different level from motorists. This is the only safe way of handling the problem.
Unfortunately, there are all too many crossings in our towns throughout the country where motorists and pedestrians must cross on the same level. There, of course, we meet the majority of our dangers, but my right hon. Friend and I are most anxious to see pedestrian subways put in wherever possible. The hon. Member may have seen that as the Cromwell Road extension has proceeded these subways have been put in every quarter of a mile. That is the only safe way of enabling pedestrians to cross these important arterial roads in the cities. I will, however, look into the point which the hon. Member made, but I will write to him about it because it is obviously somewhat detailed and we might get at cross-purposes.
The question of urban motorways is of very great interest, and I particularly welcome the treatment which was given to it by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes). I feel that his sentiments about road-building generally and urban motorways in particular were most valuable and constructive. The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) also asked whether we had any plans in this respect. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro took a balanced view of the subject in his speech.
The urban motorway is the latest thought—although it is not now very new—on how to move vehicles about quickly in urban areas. There are a number in America and a few in Europe. It is


essentially a high-speed city road with two carriageways, few accesses, no intersections, no frontagers, no stopping and no pedestrians. The advantage is that it gives fast, safe, city travel, which is a very big advantage. The disadvantages are the high cost and the damage to amenity.
I should like briefly to give an illustration from the A-ring road, which has had the most attention of any ring road in this country, to show how this works. The A-ring road is a ring road around inner London on a radius of about 1½ to 2 miles from Charing Cross. Its total length is about 11 or 12 miles. The advantage, of course, would be that it would allow all cross-London traffic to be deflected from the centre, which would avoid congestion there and would give safe, fast travel for the traffic concerned. It would also help movement within the centre, because many vehicles would travel out to the ring, fast round the ring, and then in again. It would bring considerable benefit to London traffic.
The main disadvantage is that the cost is very heavy. The cost would probably be about £150 million, which is about £13 million per mile. That is the cost of the acquisition of land and the building of the road. On top of this would be the cost of the redevelopment of all the properties which adjoined the motorway and which would be affected by the road suddenly cutting right through this densely developed area. Nobody has been able to work out how much that would cost, but it would be very heavy. However it were dealt with financially, it would be a considerable burden on the nation's resources or it would be a big deduction from the total funds available for the road programme.
The question of amenity also arises. Starting at Hyde Park, this urban motorway would run in a tunnel north and south through Hyde Park. Where it reached the Bayswater Road it would swing across north of Oxford Street, run south of the Euston Road across to the Angel, Islington, south through to Gardiner's Corner and then across the Thames by a new tunnel east of London Bridge. It would then run south of the Thames through Southwark, Bermondsey and Lambeth on a viaduct, back across the Thames near Vauxhall Bridge, up

through Eaton Square and Belgravia, in a cutting, and then down under Hyde Park again.
I think I have said enough to give right hon. and hon. Members a rough picture of what this road would be like; a huge viaduct south of the river and a great cutting north of the river and a length of tunnel under Hyde Park. That great cutting would run north of Oxford Street, through Belgravia and Pimlico and through residential estates and squares containing cherished amenities and building of architectural value. It would make a very big difference to the face of London.
I do not say that we shall never have such motorways—it may be that we shall have to have them—but, although many people welcome the idea of such a motorway, when they realise what is involved, they decide it is something which they would not be keen to have near their homes. There is no getting away from the fact that the cost, in terms of amenity and in sociological terms, of splitting up whole communities is very heavy. My right hon. Friend and I feel that the right approach is to regard this idea as something to be used in certain special cases. There is a case for it in Newport and we have therefore proposed it, but the weighing up of the pros and cons set a frightful problem for Newport. We think it has a place in the extension from the Great West Road at the beginning of the South Wales radial.
It is sufficient merely to refer to the Hammersmith fly-over to indicate the sort of thing which happens in the case of a motorway. There has been opposition from Hammersmith for four years. Hon. Members may think that there is no great architectural beauty there, but the local view is, "You may have your motorways, but not in Hammersmith". That illustrates the attitude regarding these roads. They would be a wonderful means of enabling traffic to move quickly and safely, but they would impose a heavy cost on the community.
At present, therefore, our general approach to the urban problem is to improve existing all-purpose roads—and here I agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford—and to make extensive improvements at the intersections. Particularly we wish to


see a development of traffic engineering, and I was glad to hear that commended by my hon. Friend. At present a good deal is done on an ad hoc basis, but we want to see comprehensive systems of traffic engineering applied in our cities. We can derive immense value from a more scientific use of our streets and from a full control of parked vehicles which make the most extravagant use of the available street space.
The anxiety expressed by architects about the building of urban motorways is quite unfounded. The city committees which have been set up—including the London Roads Committee, of which I am Chairman, and the committees in the Midlands and in the West Riding which are considering the big conurbations there—are considering road development in these big urban areas over the next 20 years. The members of these committees include the town planning authorities, with their architects and other experts. There is no doubt that amenity and architectural considerations are fully expressed and are taken into consideration together with engineering views on traffic considerations.
The whole idea of the exercise is to obtain a balanced approach to this very difficult problem. I am certain that from the reports of the London committee and the other committees we shall obtain a helpful picture of what must be done during the next 20 years, and of the best way to tackle the extremely difficult and complex problems of road development in these vast urban areas.
We are asking the House to approve these Supplementary Estimates for an extra £11 million because of the acceleration in our road construction programme. It is clear from the comments made by hon. Members on both sides of the House that this progress is welcomed. I am sure that everyone approves the statement of my hon. Friend about the future road programme which will involve a rise in the expenditure on roads to £65 million in 1960–61, and thereafter the figure will run at not less than £60 million.
These are very big figures. It is the biggest road programme that this country has ever undertaken. The brilliant intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) made clear that we intend to achieve more than the Romans managed to

achieve because, apparently, they built only 10 miles of road each year. I was never very good at Latin translation and so I will not go further and discuss the cost of the road building programmes carried out by the Romans. It is enough to say that the road programme today is by far the biggest that has ever been undertaken in this country.
That applies particularly to the forward commitments which will cost not less than £60 million, and it is something which makes it possible for us, in consultation with the local authorities, to plan ahead with confidence far enough to ensure that the lengthy preparatory work is completed in time to keep the pipeline full. We also benefit from the fact that contractors can gather teams and equipment for large-scale works with a reasonable prospect of continuity. That is the only possible basis on which competitive tendering may be undertaken for high quality work and I am sure that we are beginning to see the fruits of it.
Hon. Members opposite have criticised our programme on the grounds that it is inadequate and that there are unused resources of labour and materials which could be utilised to enable the programme to be extended. That point was made particularly by the hon. Member for Enfield, East and by his right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling).
There are two answers to that criticism. The first is that, for a programme to succeed, it must be set within the physical and professional resources of the nation. Secondly, it must be within the financial resources of the nation. From the point of view of physical and professional resources the rate of expansion of the road programme has been very rapid. When the Conservative Government started at the end of 1951 the rate of expenditure was £3·2 million for Great Britain. Eighteen months later, when the then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, announced the road programme, it was about the same figure. From then, in about five years, the figure has risen from £3·3 million per annum for Great Britain to about £53 million for the current year. That represents the enormous increase of nearly sixteen times in five years.
The statutory and professional work necessary in preparing a major road


scheme is very heavy and lengthy. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro was correct in saying that this work had not been started by right hon. and hon. Members opposite. They may have outlined an odd scheme or two on the map, and I give them credit for the legislation which they passed. But the lengthy preparatory work, consisting of establishing the line and the statutory work involved, acquiring property and, possibly, dealing with objections at public inquiries, and the work of surveying, takes three to four years, or even longer in the case of the towns.
To shorten that procedure would be to risk injustice being done to property owners and local authorities, and I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Wembly, South (Mr. Russell) warmly support our view that on no account should that procedure be shortened. The actual authorisation of new work, at the stage when the preparatory work is finished, has risen from £3·6 million in 1952–53 to £96 million in 1958–59—which is a dramatic expansion. No one could say that the expansion could be faster, and a number of county councils which, in most cases, are the agents in this matter are finding difficulty in meeting the programme which we have put before them. I should like to congratulate the county councils on the work they have done, and not only the local authorities, but all who have been concerned in this tremendous expansion of road work over the last five years. I am certain that the programme could not have gone any faster.
We have set our programme within what we believe to be the financial resources of the nation. Of course, all the considerations mentioned by right hon. and hon. Members opposite have been carefully balanced by my right hon. Friend and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when deciding on the size of the programme, and I am quite sure that it has been set at the right level to ensure success. Now the roads are being built, which is different from what happened in the case of the road programme under the Labour Government when the roads existed only on paper.
I hope, therefore, that the House will be content to approve the Supplementary Estimates.

It being Seven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Resolution under consideration.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, put and agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith, with respect to each of the remaining Resolutions reported from the Committee of Supply but not yet agreed to by the House, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in that Resolution:—

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Second Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Third Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Fourth Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Fifth Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Sixth Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Seventh Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Eighth Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Ninth Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith, with respect to each Resolution come to by the Committee of Supply and not yet agreed to by the House, the


Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in that Resolution:—

SUPPLY [10th February]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1958–59

CLASS X

VOTE 4. NATIONAL INSURANCE AND FAMILY ALLOWANCES

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £26,496,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, for sums payable by the Exchequer to the National Insurance Fund and the Industrial Injuries Fund and for payments in respect of family allowances.

SUPPLY [10th March]

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1959–60

VOTE 1 PAY, ETC., OF THE ARMY

1. That a sum, not exceeding £125,260,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

VOTE 2. RESERVE FORCES, TERRITORIAL ARMY AND CADET FORCES

2. That a sum, not exceeding £18.210,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the Reserve Forces (to a number not exceedng 371,500, all ranks, including a number not exceeding 360,000 other ranks). Territorial Army (to a number not exceeding 330,900, all ranks), Cadet Forces and Malta Territorial Force, which will come in course of payment durng the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1960.

VOTE 6. SUPPLIES, ETC.

3. That a sum, not exceeding £43,540,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of supplies, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

VOTE 7. STORES

4. That a sum, not exceeding £53,680,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of stores, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

VOTE 8. WORKS, BUILDINGS AND LANDS

5. That a sum, not exceedng £30,230,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense on works, buildings and lands, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

VOTE 9. MISCELLANEOUS EFFECTIVE SERVICES

6. That a sum, not exceeding £5,840,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of miscellaneous effective services, including a grant in aid to the Council of Voluntary Welfare Work, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

VOTE 10. NON-EFFECTVE SERVICES

7. That a sum, not exceeding £36,980,000, he granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

VOTE 11. ADDITIONAL MARRIED QUARTERS

8. That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of certain additional married quarters, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1958–59

9. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £900,010, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Army Services for the year.

SCHEDULE



Sums not exceeding



Supply Grants
Appropriations in Aid


Vote
£
£


1. Pay, etc., of the Army
7,190,010
1,630,000


2. Reserve Forces, Territorial Army and Cadet Forces
1,500,000
—


3. War Office
150,000
—


4. Civilian (Revised Sum)
Cr. 790,000
370,000


5. Movements
625,000
865,000


6. Supplies, etc.
Cr. 1,590,000
—


7. Stores
Cr.14,900,000
1,250,000


8. Works, Buildings and Lands
Cr. 1,150,000
*—210,000


9. Miscellaneous Effective Services
8,860,000
—


10. Non-Effective Services
1,005,000
—


11. Additional Married Quarters
—
*—135,000


Total, Army (Supplementary), 1958–59
£900,010
£3,770,000


* Deficit.

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1959–60

VOTE 1. PAY, ETC., OF THE ROYAL NAVY AND ROYAL MARINES

10. That a sum, not exceeding £64,899,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

VOTE 2. VICTUALLING AND CLOTHING FOR THE NAVY

11. That a sum, not exceeding £12,794,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of victualling and clothing for the Navy, including the cost of victualling establishments at home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

VOTE 6. SCIENTIFIC SERVICES

12. That a sum, not exceeding £17,805,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of scientific services, including a grant in aid to the National Institute of Oceanography, and a subscription to the International Hydrographic Bureau, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

VOTE 10. WORKS, BUILDINGS AND REPAIRS AT HOME AND ABROAD

13. That a sum, not exceeding £12,941,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings and repairs at home and abroad, including the cost of superintendence, purchase of sites, grants and other charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

VOTE 11. MISCELLANEOUS EFFECTIVE SERVICES

14. That a sum, not exceeding £8,324,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of various miscellaneous effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

VOTE 13. NON-EFFECTIVE SERVICES

15. That a sum, not exceeding £27,127,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

VOTE 14. MERCHANT SHIPBUILDING AND REPAIR

16. That a sum, not exceeding £16,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the Directorate of Merchant Shipbuilding and Repairs and of certain miscellaneous expenses, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

VOTE 15. ADDITIONAL MARRIED QUARTERS

17. That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of certain additional married quarters at home, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1958–59

18. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £42,200,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Navy Services for the year.

SCHEDULE



Sums not exceeding



Supply Grants
Appropriations in Aid


Vote
£
£


1. Pay, etc., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines
Cr. 1,225,000
—


2. Victualling and Clothing for the Navy
700,000
*— 300,000


3. Medical Establishments and Services
145,000
*— 15,000


4. Civilians employed on Fleet Services
295,000
—


5. Educational Ser vices
40,000
—


6. Scientific Services
Cr. 200,000
200,000


8. Shipbuilding, Repairs and Maintenance, etc.—




Section I—Personnel
730,000
130,000


Section II— Mat&amp;ériel
4,800,000
*—2,400,000


Section III— Contract Work
34,150,000
*—1,200,000


9. Naval Armaments
Cr. 575,000
*—1,050,000


10. Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad
1,075,000
*—2,275,000


11. Miscellaneous Effective Services
Cr. 1,040,000
1,140,000


12. Admiralty Office
975,000
—


13. Non-Effective Services
2,330,000
—


15. Additional Married Quarters
—
*— 230,000


Total, Navy (Supplementary), 1958–59
£42,200,000
*—6,000,000


* Deficit.

AIR ESTIMATES, 1959–60

VOTE 1. PAY, ETC., OF THE AIR FORCE

19. That a sum, not exceeding £109,200,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

VOTE 2. RESERVE AND AUXILIARY SERVICES

20. That a sum, not exceeding £1,139,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the reserve and auxiliary services (to a number not exceeding 188,400, all ranks, for the Royal Air Force Reserve, and 4,100, all ranks, for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1960.

VOTE 7. AIRCRAFT AND STORES

21. That a sum, not exceeding £213,850,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of aircraft and stores, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

VOTE 8. WORKS AND LANDS

22. That a sum, not exceeding £30,550,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of works and lands, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

VOTE 9. MISCELLANEOUS EFFECTIVE SERVICES

23. That a sum, not exceeding £4,040,000. be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of miscellaneous effective services, including certain grants in aid and a subscription to the World Meteorological Organisation, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

VOTE 11. ADDITIONAL MARRIED QUARTERS

24. That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of certain additional married quarters, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1958–59

25. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,750,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Air Services for the year.

SCHEDULE



Sums not exceeding



Supply Grants
Appropriations in Aid


Vote
£
£


1. Pay, etc., of the Air Force
8,050,000
*— 5,250,000


3. Air Ministry (Revised Sum)
510,000
*— 70,000


4. Civilians at Outstations (Revised Sum)
2,620,000
*— 220,000


5. Movements
1,100,000
680,000


6. Supplies
Cr. 900,000
970.000


7. Aircraft and Stores
Cr. 6,200,000
*— 80,000


8. Works and Lands
Cr. 1,200,000
*— 3,100,000


9. Miscellaneous Effective Services
Cr. 660,000
*— 210,000


10. Non-effective Services
430,000
30,000


Total, Air (Supplementary), 1958–59
£3,750,000
*— 7,250,000


* Deficit.

SUPPLY [3rd March]

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1959–60

VOTE A. NUMBER OF LAND FORCES

That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 351,000, all ranks, be maintained for the safety of the United Kingdom and the defence of the possessions of Her Majesty's Crown, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

SUPPLY [5th March]

AIR ESTIMATES, 1959–60

VOTE A. NUMBER FOR AIR FORCE SERVICE

That a number of officers, airmen and airwomen, not exceeding 180,000, all ranks, be maintained for Air Force Service, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

SUPPLY [9th March]

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1959–60

VOTE A. NUMBERS

That 106,000 Officers, Seamen and Juniors and Royal Marines, who are borne on the books of Her Majesty's Ships and at the Royal Marine establishments, and members of the Women's Royal Naval Service and Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service, be employed for the Sea Service, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

Resolutions agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS [12th March]

Resolutions reported,
That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1958, the sum of £94,262 18s. 1d. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, the sum of £161,954,391 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, the sum of £2,088,445,100 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Resolutions agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Simon.

CONSOLIDATED FUND

Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and fifty-eight, one thousand nine hundred and fifty-nine, and one thousand nine hundred and sixty, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 79.]

TORQUAY CORPORATION (WATER) BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

7.6 p.m.

Sir Henry Studholme: I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to inquire into the extensive and unco-ordinated depletion of the water resources of Dartmoor that has taken place in the past; into the effect on agriculture, fisheries and amenities that will arise from the proposed abstraction of such a high proportion of the flows on the rivers East Dart and North Teign; into the effect that the proposals in the Bill will have on unemployment in the tourist industry in South Devon; and into a future re-organisation of the water supply industry in the South Devon area; and to hear such evidence as the Committee may think fit on these matters.
I want to make it clear at the outset that everyone, as far as I know, agrees

that Torquay needs more water, particularly in the dry weather during the summer months. I do not think anyone disputes that. The only question is about the best way to satisfy the water needs of Torquay and at the same time to do the least harm to the various other interests concerned.
The following bodies have petitioned against the Bill: Devon County Council, Devon River Board, Paignton, Ashburton and Buckfastleigh Urban District Councils, the Borough of Totnes, Teign Valley Preservation Association, the National Farmers' Union, Dartmoor Commoners' Association, Dartmoor Preservation Association, the Dart Riparian Owners' Association, the Dart and Teign Netsmen, the Dart Angling Association, Dartmouth Harbour Commissioners, the River Dart Navigation Commissioners and the Church Commissioners. I give this list in full in order to show that the objection is not frivolous and that there is a very large body of responsible people who are seriously worried and concerned about the probable effects of the Bill.
I have also taken the trouble to ascertain that by continuing to object, as we have done, to the Second Reading, my hon. Friends and I have in no way delayed consideration of the Bill. The fact is that, having been petitioned against anyway, the Bill must go to the Opposed Bill Committee. I am informed that it has been arranged for it to do so after Easter. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) will appreciate this because he was at one time rather cross with me for opposing the Bill. The only reason why we have objected is to ensure that the issues involved are fully understood and that the fears and objections of those likely to be affected are carefully considered.
Statements from the Torquay Corporation and from the objectors have been circulated to hon. Members, and I do not think it is necessary for me to do more than to outline very briefly the proposals of the Bill and their probable effect.
The proposals are that the Fernworthy Dam, which lies high up on Dartmoor, should be raised by 20 feet and thus add to the capacity of the reservoir which provides just over half Torquay's present water supply. In order to find the extra water needed for this operation it will be necessary to divert into the reservoir


the head waters of two little rivers, the East Dart and the North Teign. The Bill provides that a residual flow of water should be left in the rivers.
In my opinion and that of many other people, this residual flow will be inadequate and the rivers will be reduced to drought conditions. Neither the poor little East Dart nor the poor North Teign would get any compensation water at all, because the compensation water, such as it is, would flow out of the reservoir and into the South Teign. Ever since the Fernworthy Reservoir was built in 1935, the South Teign has been a sad trickle of its former self and is no good as a spawning ground. The North Teign, which joins the South Teign at Leigh Bridge, a well-known beauty spot, is still the happy little moorland stream that I have known all my life. It is still a good spawning ground and a beautiful little river to look at. If the Bill goes through the North Teign will become a trickle like the South Teign. So also will the East Dart.
By the proposals under the Bill, the Torquay water supply would get an extra 3·7 million gallons a day, which might be sufficient to last until 1990, although I understand these estimates of the amount of water which will be needed are often rather optimistic and perhaps 1980 would be rather nearer the mark. Torquay would get an extra 3·7 million gallons a day, but the extra compensation water to make up for the losses to the rivers would be only a miserable ·15 million gallons per day. To be adequate, I understand the compensation would need to be more like ·8 million gallons per day.
The total cost of the Fernworthy scheme, I understand, would be somewhere about £560,000. There is no practical objection to raising the dam, because it was originally constructed so that at some time later it could be raised, but when it has been raised the Fernworthy catchment area will be fully developed and, probably before 1980, Torquay will have to look around for another source of supply. Other authorities in South Devon may very likely be in the same position.
Therefore, it seems that there is a strong argument for embarking now upon a much larger scheme in order to satisfy the demands of a wider area. The time has passed when individual authorities should be allowed to get water on what I

would call the "snatch-as-snatch-can" principle. There is a scheme suggested by the well-known and appropriately named expert on water supplies, Sir Arnold Waters, whom the Devon River Board has consulted. This is a scheme to take water, not from the headwaters of the Dart and the Teign, but from the lower reaches of the River Dart at Totnes Weir, just above the tidal waters.
It is true that the annual running cost of the Totnes Weir scheme would be more owing to the need for pumping, but pumping would probably only be necessary for a month or two in the summer when the holiday population is at its peak. Taking it all round, it is estimated that the difference in cost of water would not be more than about an extra 3d. per 1,000 gallons. On the other hand, the capital cost of the Totnes Weir scheme, including treatment, would be less. It would be somewhere around £400,000 as against £560,000.
For the County of Devon as a whole, the scheme suggested by Sir Arnold Waters would have very great advantages. It is believed that, unlike the Torquay scheme, it would not harm the Dart and its amenities. It would avoid ruining two beautiful moorland rivers, the North Teign and the East Dart, which many of us in Devon have loved all our lives. It would not upset the fishing and would not damage the local hotel industry, which is largely dependent on the fishing and the beauties of Dartmoor and its rivers. It would not, like the Torquay scheme, adversely affect agriculture by reducing the amount of water in the river available for watering cattle, and it would not cause financial loss to mill owners and industrial users of water from the river. Nor would it increase the danger of pollution, which the Torquay scheme would very likely do.
With the ever-growing demand for water, it is essential that we should conserve our limited sources of supply and make the best and widest possible use of it. In our opinion, the Torquay scheme does not do this. I believe it would be found that the Totnes Weir scheme would do so. I believe there are other ways in which Torquay could get water. There may be other very good schemes. I am not competent to judge of them, but they should certainly be considered.
I repeat, as I began, that of course I do not want to stop Torquay getting the extra water it needs. None of us does. I have always had a great admiration for Torquay. I think it a beautiful place, indeed, the most beautiful seaside resort on the whole south coast of England. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The most beautiful seaside resort of its kind in the whole of south-west England. Because I want to make certain that everything possible is done to avoid damage to all these wider interests in Devon—and I care very much for the welfare and interests of my county—I move this Motion, which I believe to be a very reasonable one.

7.16 p.m.

Sir Lionel Heald: I beg to second the Motion.
In doing so, I wish to make my position and attitude quite clear. Not being a Devon Member, I should not think of intervening in any merely local matter, and I hope that hon. Members representing that fair county will accept it from me that I intervene only because I consider that this is a matter of national concern, a matter of principle and real importance.
I believe that if this Motion were accepted it would not in any way damage the interests of Torquay. It would not, I am advised—and I believe there is no doubt about it—in any way prevent Torquay getting the water which my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme) said, perhaps not entirely in a way which may not be misunderstood, they need so badly. I understand there would be no difficulty at all. If this were accepted it would allow the occasion to be taken for getting a general recognition of the vital need for a national and coordinated policy in relation to the abstraction of water.
In the past, the abstraction of water has been allowed to get out of control. I think it is generally agreed that it is largely through the lack of an appropriately thought-out plan and the consequent lack of enforcement of the necessary means to carry it into effect. I have an interest to declare—in fact two interests. First, I am a lifelong enthusiastic angler, and secondly, I have had much pleasure, and hope to have much more—certainly if this Motion is accepted—in fishing in the beautiful rivers of Devonshire. I do

not feel it necessary to apologise for speaking on behalf of what are estimated to be more than 2 million anglers—certainly the largest body for which I have ever spoken. I may say that I have not asked their permission to do so, but I believe they will not mind it being said on their behalf that they are tired of being treated merely as nuisances who can be brushed aside.
If a mass lobby of anglers could be organised, we could all come to this House with our rods, our nets and reels—I do not know about gaffs—to show the public interest, but anglers do not do that sort of thing; they are quiet people. It is essential to realise that the cumulative effect of water abstraction from our rivers is terrible. It is not so much the direct effect of lowering the level of the streams—although that may be bad enough sometimes in relation to spawning fish and so forth—but the trouble is that there is a vicious spiral. First, the water is abstracted and used, and then it is returned either as sewage or effluent, and often it has not been properly purified. So an increasing amount of polluting matter goes into a decreasing amount of clean water.
That is not the end of it, because the next thing that happens is that the users of water down below say that the water is too dirty and that they must go upstream to get clean water from the uplands or from underground sources. The result is that down goes the water level again and up goes the pollution. As I understand it, there is good reason to believe today that if we could only clean up our existing rivers there would be enough water in them for all industrial and most domestic uses, and then we should avoid the unseemly scramble for water that is going on at the present time.
The matter can be put more simply, as I understand it was put in a quotation which was sent to me from proceedings before a Committee in another place on a famous Bill on which a Scottish ghillie announced that he wanted to give evidence. When he appeared before the Committee he was asked to give his evidence and not to be too long. He said "I will not be long, my Lords. I merely wish to state that it is a well known fact that where there is nae water there is nae fush." That seems to me to put the thing more clearly and certainly more


shortly than I could have done, but it is a serious matter.
There are organisations all over the country which are interested in this matter, such as the Anglers' Co-operative Association, which is doing admirable work, the Salmon and Trout Fisheries Association, and many local associations. Fishing is not a rich man's pastime. It was interesting to note the other day that at the opening of the salmon fishing season on the River Coquet there were 200 members of the working men's association fishing there, and all over the country, though perhaps not so much near London, there are people from all sections of the population who are interested, for example, in sea trout fishing in the estuaries which many of us know. One of the delights which I have always thought fishing offers is that it is one of the things in life in which there are no differences of class, politics or anything else. The only feeling is whether somebody is going to get a bigger one than oneself, and that is quite a harmless thing.
I should like, therefore, to appeal to the promoters of this Bill to allow this Motion to be accepted. There is no ill-feeling about it, and I feel that perhaps the only appropriate thing about my being allowed to intervene in this debate is that I can say that it is not a local dispute in any sense, and I appeal to the promoters in that way.
I should like to quote some words from the greatest angler of all, or, at any rate, one of the greatest—Izaak Walton —describing the sort of people we are—these 2 million anglers. He said:
No life, my honest scholar, no life so happy and so pleasant as the life of a well-governed angler;
and, of course, anglers are all well-governed—
for when the lawyer is swallowed up with business, and the statesman is preventing or contriving plots, then we sit on cowslip-banks, hear the birds sing, and possess ourselves in as much quietness as these silent silver streams, which we now see glide so quietly by us.
It is a sad thing that these "silent, silver streams" of which Izaak Walton spoke are almost entirely gone. Rivers such as the Wandle, the Mimram, and, of course, the Lea, the worst of all, have gone out of existence altogether.
Those of us who are anglers, and I am sure that I can speak for all of them,

feel that we want to stop the rot going any further, if we can. We want in a very friendly way to give a solemn warning to all the authorities concerned, and to my right hon. Friend the Minister, whom I am glad to see here, that if he does not live up to his declared intention to go down in history as the Minister for Clean Rivers, 2 million men and women will want to know the reason why.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: When I heard my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) claim to speak for 2 million fishermen, I thought that I might, on the same basis of logic, claim tonight to be able to speak for all those throughout the United Kingdom who either drink or wash with water. There is no intention in the minds of the promoters of this Bill to object, as such, to this Motion going forward tonight in its present form.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme), who spoke first for this Motion, began his remarks with the observation that at one point I had seemed rather cross with him about his tactics. I shall have to content myself with the thought that whatever remarks we may have exchanged on this subject were made in private conversation, and it would perhaps be inadvisable to pursue them now, except to say that if there was any crossness I gained the perhaps fallacious impression that the feeling was mutual.
As regards the actual merits of this Motion, I do not think it would be appropriate tonight for me to consider them or any of the adverse comments which the promoters of the Bill might feel disposed to make from a study of the statement which has been put in by those who object to the Bill. The mere fact that I do not formally object, as I shall not do tonight, to the Motion should not be taken for a moment as meaning that the promoters of the Bill in fact accept all or any of the contents of the statement which has been issued in support of the Motion or that they accept the observations made by my hon. Friend who opened the debate on this subject.
Their real attitude is that all the points made in this Motion are in fact points expressly suitable to be discussed in Committee, when in due course this Bill reaches it, and, therefore, it would be


superfluous to go through them in detail this evening. Indeed, I can say here, in declaring my own position, that although I am speaking in support of the promoters of the Bill and their case tonight, it is well known that some people in part of the constituency which I have the honour to represent are among those who object to it, and I have never at any time said that I agree with the Bill in every respect. All I would say here tonight is that I think it is eminently a Bill which, for the reasons given—that Torquay must have extra water—should be given a Second Reading and go before a Select Committee for the detailed consideration which it deserves.
I want to stress, too, that in some instances there has been quite a degree of exaggeration of the harm that this Bill would do, even if enacted in its present form. A spokesman in the Devon County Council recently said that if the Bill went through Dartmoor would become a desert. A little historical research shows that the extra water would come from the same source as that from which the old tin workings got their supplies—through the same old leats. The only difference is that considerably more water was then taken through the leats for the local tin mines than Torquay now proposes to take, but, as far as I know, Dartmoor did not become a desert—

Sir H. Studholme: I find that a ridiculous argument. In those days, very little water was used for the towns. The big towns did not use water in the same way.

Mr. Bennett: That is not relevant to what I said. I said that considerably more water was then taken from the higher reaches of Dartmoor than the extra amount now proposed to be taken, yet Dartmoor did not become a desert. In any case, I have too much respect for my hon. Friend to think that he really imagines that Dartmoor would become a desert—

Mr. F. H. Hayman: Can the hon. Member inform the House when the tin mines of Dartmoor were last worked?

Mr. Bennett: I cannot give that information. In any case, it is not pertinent. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock does not support

the view that in such circumstances Dartmoor would become a desert.
Another of the objections is that this scheme would lead to loss of or damage to agricultural land. I am categorically instructed that there would be no loss of agricultural land at all. All the land needed is already owned by Torquay. My hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock murmurs that he never said that. I can only say that, however prominent may have been my hon. Friend's position in recent negotiations, others besides himself have made objections to this Bill. I am commenting on all the objections and not only on his. For, contrary to the idea that agricultural industry will be harmed, I may say that some of the increase is needed for rural and agricultural water supplies. This water is not intended just for the town.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey knows that I have some natural sympathy with his cause. In fact, we have fished the same rivers in Wales. However, it is right in this matter, too, to get and to keep a sense of proportion. It is interesting to note that before the Fernworthy Dam was made a large number of objections were made against that project by anglers on the grounds of harm being done to fishing interests. I have same interesting statistics. Between 1943 and 1946, 821 salmon were netted, another 85 were rod caught. Yet after all those grim warnings about the effects on fishing interests, the fact remains that six years after the Fernworthy Dam was completed—that is, between 1948 and 1950—there was a 30 per cent. improvement in the number of fish caught; in other words, 1,078 salmon were netted then as compared with 821 before the dam was built, and 111 salmon were rod caught instead of the previous 85.
Now, as to compensation, mention has been made of the ill effects on the Teign, but there will be 150,000 extra gallons of compensation water daily, which will therefore mean no loss of flow at all at the confluence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock said that if this scheme went through the Dart would be reduced to a trickle—

Sir H. Studholme: The East Dart.

Mr. Bennett: The East Dart, yes. It is all the more relevant to get the figures in proportion, and I confess that I am now referring to the Dart as a whole. The maximum loss at any time will be 3 per cent. of the flow, and bearing in mind the river's size I do not think that it could be said that there would be very serious effects on fishing or other interests.
The Motion speaks of
… reorganisation of the water supply industry …
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, in the water survey appertaining to this district, has recommended the raising of the Fernworthy Dam and the abstraction of water from the North Teign as proposed in the Bill. Therefore, two out of three of the promoters' proposals have not only been considered but have been embodied in the recommendations of the Survey.
The promoters of the Bill have not, at any stage, averred that this Bill is not capable of improvement, and they would certainly welcome constructive suggestions to that end. Paignton, in another part of my constituency, objects to the Bill. Therefore, I have no plea to make tonight except that this Measure should receive the normal fair consideration that any Bill receives by the appropriate Committee. I do not think for a moment that I would be right in opposing the Motion, for the very good reason that, as I have said, it albeit superfluously sets out precisely the sort of things that the Committee should consider.
It is worth placing on record that Torquay has a very real and urgent need for the water. It has a winter population of 87,500, rising to 150.000 in the summer. It is becoming increasingly popular as a seaside resort. Torquay can fairly claim the help of the whole county in this request for further supplies of water. It can make that claim for the help and co-operation of the rest of the county, because not only is it a particularly beautiful seaside resort, but it contributes very substantially to the finances of Devon. Torquay certainly makes a much greater economic contribution to the welfare of the county, with whose interests we are all concerned, than do many of the objecting bodies.
I hope therefore that we shall avoid any further delay in seeing that this Bill

receives the consideration it deserves, and that it will now go to a Committee, either with or without the Motion attached to it, as the House may decide.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. Mark Bonham Carter: I should like, first, to apologise to the House for speaking on two days running, and to assure hon. Members that I do not propose to make this a habit. I have not yet developed that political experience that leads some people, whenever they see two or three people gathered together, to feel an irresistible desire to address them, nor do I find it intolerable to listen to any speeches except my own.
I understand that the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. Bennett) came down, in the end, in favour of the Motion so clearly put before the House by the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme). I am glad that he did so. It would seem that in this House tonight we could cry, in the words of the song:
I'm very fond of water, I take it noon and night,
No mother's son nor daughter takes therein more delight.
It is because of the importance of water, both to Torquay and to Dartmoor—some of which lies within the boundaries of my constituency—that I speak. In the earlier part of his remarks, the hon. Member for Torquay neglected what his hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock made so clear, and what I should like to repeat: everybody who has doubts about this Bill, and who supports the Motion, nevertheless agrees that Torquay must have water.
I am not altogether happy about the method by which Torquay proposes to get its water. I am not altogether happy, partly because of the effect it may have on Dartmoor. As the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) said, it is a matter for national concern. Torquay is a national beauty spot. As the hon. Member for Torquay said, it depends very largely on the tourist trade. A large number of people go to Torquay to go elsewhere. One of the places to which they go is Dartmoor. Therefore, it is in their interests, as well as in the interests of Devon and of the country as a whole, that we should look very carefully at any scheme which does anything to impair the beauty of Dartmoor.
One has only to look at the people who have objected to the Bill, and their wide interests, to see that the doubts need to be dispelled. They are farmers, fishermen, the Dartmoor Preservation Society and the Devon County Council, which, after all, represents all interests.
Dartmoor already suffers from having an Army training ground. I feel that that is bad enough. I understand that there is a possibility—indeed, that it will be necessary—of erecting buildings or constructions on Dartmoor if the scheme as it stands goes through. I shall be very sorry to see anything which in any way impairs the extraordinary beauty of Dartmoor. For that reason, I support the Motion.

7.42 p.m.

Miss Joan Vickers: I also should like to support the Motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme) in such a very clear manner. I must tell the House that I am not speaking on behalf of the Plymouth City Council. For generations the Plymouth City Council has taken its water from Dartmoor. Sir Francis Drake in the 1580s constructed leats that brought in all the water by gravity, and that system lasted up until the recent war. It was not until the present rehousing schemes that we had to start pumping in our water. Therefore, I sympathise with the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) and with the Torquay Corporation in the Corporation's need for further water.
I should like to suggest to my right hon. Friend that the time has come to make some definite plans, because 14 different water undertakings draw water from Dartmoor. My right hon. Friend may agree that his Ministry sent down Mr. Vail in 1952, who produced what is known as the Vail Report. The Report definitely recommended that the undertakings should be cut down to four water areas.
A regrouping is suggested by Torquay. It is not in accordance with the Vail Report, or in accordance with the Minister's policy as set out in Circular 52/56 of September, 1956. It has been pointed out by hon. Members that the water is likely to last at the most until 1990 only, and probably until only 1980. It is more likely that the former year will be the correct one.
Many organisations which have already been mentioned have petitioned against the Bill. Paignton should be especially noted. It has been suggested that there has been exaggeration about the shallowness of the rivers in the summer months. It is said in the circulars we received from the various authorities that Torquay needs the water urgently during the summer months. It is not an all-year-round problem. Therefore, I do not think that we can consider the whole matter as one of immediate necessity.
There are other ways in which Torquay can obtain its water. For instance, the Devon Water Board and the Paignton Urban District Council have a surplus of water. Therefore, if Torquay is in urgent need of water, I suggest that it might take some surplus water, at any rate on an interim period, from one of those authorities.
I should like to emphasise that the West Country depends a great deal on its tourist trade. It is not just Torquay that depends on the tourist trade. Cities like Plymouth also depend on it. Certain shops deal entirely with fishing gear. Trade will lessen if it is known that certain rivers will become unfishable.
We have very great difficulty in regard to employment. On Dartmoor and in the villages surrounding it there are a great many retired people and widows who keep small boarding houses for the fishermen mentioned by the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), and also for people who like to go on walking holidays. It will be a great pity if the amenities for fishing and sightseeing are spoiled.
There is a great tourist trade by way of coaches. Coaches go to the beauty spots where the rivers meet. It will be very difficult for them to go there and ensure any interest in the landscapes if the rivers are very shallow, perhaps muddy or, in times of drought, very nearly dried up.
It has been suggested in one of the pamphlets issued by the Torquay Corporation that there are no suitable sources available in South Devon for water supplies other than the rivers. I have mentioned that two sources could supply Torquay with water, both of which obtain their water from the rivers.
Has any consideration been given to the use of sea water? I understand that a


great experiment is taking place in Israel on the extraction of salt from sea water. Are any plans being made? If there is a likelihood in the not too distant future of some scheme like that being put into operation it would be helpful to our consideration if we could be told about it. Water from the sea might be used, particularly for bathing, if the salt was removed.
In regard to the shallowness of the rivers, nothing has been mentioned up to dale about the Middle Teign. Paragraph 10 of the Memorandum prepared by the opposers of the Bill says:
The Bill proposes to increase the quantity of compensation water but as the capacity of the reservoir will he increased by raising the height of the darn the ratio of the compensation water to the yield of the enlarged reservoir will be reduced to one-quarter.
That is a very important point, because we have been led to believe that it would not be reduced. Paragraph 10 continues:
Moreover the river will lose the benefit of the freshets that it now receives from the overspill due to the fact that the River Middle Teign is at present under-reservoired.
The loss of freshets will affect the small farm owners who use the freshets for watering their cattle, and so on.
Therefore, in the light of the representations which have been made, I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider that the Motion is worth accepting and that a great deal of work will be done to see that the rivers in Devon are not depleted any further. I hope that we shall have some concrete and organised scheme and not the many and varied small organisations which are in existence at present.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: I rise to support the Motion. I need no excuse for saying that I am not a Devon Member, because the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) supported the Motion. But on my father's side I have connections with Devon. I ought to declare my interest at the outset, because I am a member of the Dartmoor Preservation Association, which is one of the petitioners against the Bill.
I will confine myself to one petition to which the Dartmoor Preservation Association is a party. The Devon Branch of the National Farmers' Union also is a party to it, and I think that it ought to be made clear that that branch has

200,000 members. This is, therefore, an association, a utilitarian body, of very great consequence in Devon because it represents the greatest industry of Devon, that is, farming.
The Dartmoor Preservation Association was founded in 1883. It is an independent voluntary organisation which seeks to preserve Dartmoor's wild and natural beauty, its freedom and its antiquity as an invaluable heritage for the nation's enjoyment for all time. The association has a membership of more than 500, comprising not only local residents but also people from every part of the country who support the objects of the petitioners.
Again, there is the Dartmoor Commoners' Association. Obviously, the Dartmoor commoners have a very ancient interest in Dartmoor. The fact that they are concerned about the effect of the Bill upon the water resources of Dartmoor is a matter of some consequence. The right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey spoke about the great membership of the angling associations in this country. In my own constituency, we have many such organisations composed almost entirely of working men.
The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) referred to the increase in the number of salmon taken from Dartmoor in recent years. It seems to me that we should also take into account the vastly increased number of anglers, many of whom, probably are working men who, for the first time in their lives, have had holidays with pay which enable them to enjoy Dartmoor. There are also the mill owners, whose position must be considered. Although it may seem odd that I, on this side, should be supporting the riparian owners, it is undoubtedly correct that they have rights, often very ancient rights, which should be respected. There are the rights of the occupiers of land adjoining the rivers which the rivers feed. Finally, there are in Devon the licensed netsmen, who also derive their living from the rivers.
There is very great concern about the lowered water table which the increasing demands on the water resources of Dartmoor is bringing about. This is becoming a nightmare to many of the inhabitants of Dartmoor who may live far from a piped supply. My information is that these people are already facing increasing difficulties year by year. If there comes


a time when, for two or three years in succession, there is a low rainfall, such people, as well as the anglers, will have a very sorry time.
As the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Bonham Carter) reminded us, the amenities of the National Park can be spoiled by the erection of buildings. No doubt the Committee will give attention to that aspect of the matter, but one of the purposes of this debate tonight is to make it possible for the points made here by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides to be brought to the attention of the Committee. Those of us who have served on Private Bill Committees know quite well that Second Reading debates are drawn upon by counsel for the promoters and the petitioners quite freely.
The lack of co-ordination, which was stressed by the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme), did not matter very much, perhaps in the past, but it is now becoming a menace. All sorts of authorities want to draw water from the same source. During this Session, we have already had a Bill, the North Devon Water Bill, which will impinge upon the water resources of Dartmoor at Taw Marsh, in the north. Although Dartmoor may be large, it is not all that large. On a high tableland of this kind, the water table is bound to be lowered if water is drawn from it at any point of the compass.
Because I objected to the North Devon Water Bill receiving a formal Second Reading and, again, because of objections by hon. Members on both sides to a formal Second Reading for this Bill, I have received correspondence from all kinds of people thanking me for opposing the Bill. They fear that, if it is carried into effect, their interests will be very seriously prejudiced. They include hoteliers, riparian owners, occupiers of land adjacent to the streams and rivers, and people whose businesses depend upon the water of the streams and rivers of Dartmoor.
Two years ago, I spent a summer holiday near Chagford. It was a very wet summer then, as many of us may well remember. There were two streams near where I stayed. When we arrived there, both streams were swollen roaring torrents the whole night through, but it was amazing how quickly the torrents subsided. It seems to me, therefore, that the

fears of those concerned with this Bill, those living on Dartmoor, those whose livelihood depends upon the water coming from Dartmoor, are very cogent. There is, I feel, great justice in their fears.
One hon. Member referred to the seaside resorts of the Isle of Thanet on the east coast of Kent. This brought to my mind the Kent Water Bill, which was before an opposed Bill Committee of the House four years ago. The Committee sat for three months. The Bill was promoted by the Kent County Council to conserve the water reserves of Kent and to reduce the number of water undertakings there from 40 to 14. The Bill was approved in all its main particulars by the House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): Order. The hon. Gentleman may not go into questions about the Kent Water Bill.

Mr. Hayman: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was trying to illustrate the point that there is, as the Minister will know, a great need for a complete survey of the water resources of regions as well as of the country as a whole. The need is particularly great on Dartmoor.
The Motion makes four points. It asks that there shall be an inquiry
into the extensive and unco-ordinated depletion of the water resources of Dartmoor that has taken place in the past; into the effect on agriculture, fisheries and amenities that will arise from the proposed abstraction of such a high proportion of the flows on the rivers East Dart and North Teign; into the effect that the proposals in the Bill will have on unemployment in the tourist industry in South Devon; and into a future re-organisation of the water supply industry in the South Devon area".
It seems to me that all these points are supported on both sides of the House. As a member of the Dartmoor Preservation Association, as a lover of Dartmoor and of all our National Parks, I would add the plea that we should take into account a quotation from the Bible, and I hope that I shall not be considered blasphemous for making this quotation:
Man shall not live by bread alone".

8.0 p.m.

Sir Harold Roper: I have an interest to declare in this Bill in that I am a resident of Torquay. There-


fore, I am deeply interested in the provisions of a good and adequate water supply.
But a general principle is involved here, of which I am acutely aware, as I represent a rural constituency, and that is the principle to which most hon. Members have referred, namely, the need to avoid depleting the rivers and streams at their fountainhead. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) particularly emphasised the fishing aspect, and his remarks may be particularly appropriate to the rivers with which we are concerned in this debate. Generally speaking, however, it is more important still that there should be sufficient flow to maintain a healthy condition. Too great a depletion of our streams and rivers near the head waters where sewage effluent pours into them is a matter with which we must be increasingly concerned.
I agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) on the amenity value of Dartmoor. I would stress particularly the amenities of Dartmeet, which is probably the most popular place in the whole of Dartmoor. Thousands of people and coaches by the score visit Dartmeet during the holiday season. The East and West Darts meet at this point, and the most popular place for holidaymakers is just up the East Dart, one of the rivers concerned in this Bill. When the Committee deals with this matter, I hope it will bear that point in mind.
I am convinced that the pros and cons of this Bill should be carefully considered at the appropriate place, which is not the Floor of this House but in the Committee upstairs. I fully support this Motion.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: I support the Motion which has been moved so eloquently and clearly. On these occasions we do not always give reasons why we speak on behalf of a Motion, but I have noted that all Members who have spoken in this debate have given some reason for doing so, quite apart from the fact that they are either for or against it.
From my own garden at home, I am able to see Dartmoor. When I was young I went over most of Dartmoor with a compass during week-ends. Naturally, I love the place. Quite apart

from the amenities of Dartmoor, I would emphasise the need for extreme care when considering water. Of course, every hon. Member wants Torquay to have clear and good water. The question which is before the House is whether there are alternative ways of accomplishing that objective apart from the Bill which we are now considering. We should be extremely careful and bear in mind the important relationship between trees and water. Future inhabitants of the world may well regret the present-day behaviour of some people towards trees, which may lessen the supply of water which is so necessary to the world as a whole.
I noticed with interest the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) on distilling water from the sea. I am certain that a number of hon. Members thought that this suggestion would involve excessive expense, but when she made the suggestion I could not help but also remember the great distilling plant in Kuwait and the vessel which arrived in the Thames lately containing natural gas. The chief cost of that distilling plant in England would be the power to operate it, and it is now possible to bring power to the ports in the form of natural gas much more cheaply than ever before has been contemplated. Although that matter does not arise directly from this Bill, I think it is worthy of consideration by the Minister.
I support this Motion, and I believe that even my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) has slight doubts about whether the Bill is perfect. There is no doubt that the proper place for different evidence to be sifted is in Committee upstairs. I trust that when that evidence is given, the Committee will bear in mind that nothing is more important than water, to maintain it and to see also that the trees are preserved for this purpose. Above all, in matters of this sort we should do nothing in a hurry, but do all we can to preserve the beauty of the locality and supply good water to Torquay.

8.7 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): There has been such a degree of unanimity in the House this evening that it may be that


hon. Members do not wish me to intervene. At the same time, a number of references have been made to me in the debate and, indeed, one or two Members have almost reached the point of urging that the Government should accept this Motion.
This is not Government business and it is for the House to decide how it will proceed, but I think it may be desired by my hon. Friends the Members for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) and for Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme), and by others, that I should say a little both in relation to the Parliamentary situation in which we find ourselves and in relation to some of the points which have been raised.
Two of my hon. Friends have suggested that the Minister or his Ministry is not sufficiently interested in the possibility of obtaining water for industrial or drinking purposes from the sea. I hope that hon. Members who have not yet seen it will obtain and read the Report of the Sub-Committee of the Central Advisory Water Committee on The Growing Demand for Water which was published last month, because it is obvious from this evening's debate that many hon. Members are keenly interested in water matters, and I think it is recognised throughout the water industry and by all those who study the subject that this is a Report of the first importance.
This is not a Government Report. It was prepared for the Central Advisory Water Committee by one of its Sub-Committees and it has been endorsed by the Central Advisory Water Committee. On this very point the Report says at paragraph 13:
In the future the processes of demineralisation and distillation may be further developed to a point where it will be practicable to use more tidal water for both industrial purposes and public supplies, but at the present stage of development the cost is in general greater than that of piping water over long distances.
I must advise the House that that is the most authoritative view that I can put before it at the moment, and it has not simply been thought up in my own mind.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Is that Report published by the Stationery Office?

Mr. Brooke: Yes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock said that the fundamental question here was, what was the best way to meet the needs of Torquay and at the same time to cause the least harm elsewhere. I think the whole House would probably accept that these are questions the detail of which can be much better probed in Committee than in the House. Indeed, to the best of my belief the whole reason behind our procedure on Private Bills is that because so many of them concern matters of detail which could not be discussed at sufficient length in the House they are considered by a Select Committee and the House, if it approves the principle of a Bill on Second Reading, refers it to a Select Committee to which it may or may not give an Instruction. To that last Parliamentary point I will come in a minute.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock raised the question of compensation water. He clearly feared that certain rivers would be allowed to run dry or virtually dry under the provisions in the Bill. He also touched on what I should have thought was one of the major questions which any Committee on this Bill would need to thresh out, and that is, whether it is more desirable to meet the water needs of Torquay by abstracting relatively unpolluted water from the headwaters of rivers and feeding it by gravity down to the coast at the risk—I am not prejudging any of these matters—of depleting the flow in those rivers or, alternatively, by abstracting water with a higher degree of pollution from the lower reaches and then having the expense of pumping it into supply. These are essentially matters for the Committee to deal with, and I would certainly not seek in this debate to pronounce upon them.
When I did become worried was when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) and my hon. Friend spoke of abstraction of water being out of control. They spoke of an unseemly scramble, a snatch-as-snatch-can situation. I hope the House will forgive me for reminding it that Parliament passed the Water Act in 1945 and put direct responsibility on the Minister to avoid this kind of thing. I will explain in a moment how that happens.
Section 1 of the Water Act. 1945, reads:
It shall be the duty of the Minister … to promote the conservation and proper use of water resources and the provision of water supplies in England and Wales. …
If, therefore, there has been an unseemly scramble for water in the last 14 years Parliament ought to have been taking successive Ministers up upon it. For my part, I think it is disappointing that we have not had a larger number of debates in the House on water, because I have no doubt whatever that that is one of the supremely important subjects for this country.

Mr. Hayman: We all know the right hon. Gentleman's great concern for the water supplies of the country. Could he say whether on his own initiative he has made an examination of the effect of abstraction of water from Dartmoor?

Mr. Brooke: I will come to that in a moment, but we have in the Department—and this goes back long before my time—made engineering surveys all over the country. I think one of my hon. Friends referred to the Vail Report, which is that engineering survey which covers Dartmoor. Reports of these surveys have been made available to the water undertakers in the areas concerned, and I think they have been regarded as of great value and of authoritative quality, if not necessarily the last word on the subject, then an extremely useful, objective engineering examination of the water problems.
There is, I know, some suspicion, not so much in this House as outside, that despite the Water Act it is possible still to snatch as snatch can and to scramble for water. May be it is not for me to lay before the House an account of my stewardship in this, but let me again quote the Report to which I have just referred, the Report of the Sub-Committee on The Growing Demand for Water. In paragraph 27 it says:
The Ministry of Housing and Local Government co-ordinates the needs and plans of public water undertakers and no sources car he exploited by them unless they are authorised by an Order of the Minister or by Private Act.
A Private Act is an Act of Parliament: an order of the Minister is subject to Parliamentary control. So Parliament is in a sense blaming itself, if it still talks

about the scramble for water. My own view is—I take no special credit for myself—that all my predecessors back to 1945 have been responsibly discharging their duties under the Act. I think Parliament has been carefully and thoroughly addressing itself to water Bills and, I am sure, has challenged any water order which needed to be challenged.
These phrases about the "scramble for water" are really at least 14 years out of date. That scramble can no longer take place. Indeed, we are seeing here in the very discussion on this Bill, and by the fact that this Bill must necessarily be referred to a Committee of the House, that there is ample opportunity for those of our colleagues who are appointed to that Committee to examine this Water Bill, and any other water Bill, from the angle of whether it does lead to proper co-ordination in the abstraction of water or not.
I cannot help thinking that one of the difficulties in a case like this—and it may well be part of the consideration which has led my hon. Friend to move that this Instruction be given to the Committee—is that the Private Bill procedure makes no provision for a public local inquiry. When the water undertaker is proceeding by way of a water order to which there is objection, then a public local inquiry must be held. I do not say that everybody is satisfied, but certainly everybody locally has ample opportunity to learn the arguments on both sides.

Mr. Hayman: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account that some promoters of water Bills take advantage of this fact and promote a Bill to avoid inquiry?

Mr. Brooke: I do not know if it is for me to pronounce upon that, but it is certainly the case that if a water Bill is promoted then a public inquiry does not take place; but then, if there is a strong feeling that hon. Members whose constituencies or whose interests—I say "interests" in the best sense of the term—are affected, they may seek to debate the details of the Bill on Second Reading, in order that some of the pros and cons may be made known to the public in the locality.
I trust that without getting out of order I may make a passing reference to the


fact that my task with the Liverpool Corporation Bill as it affected Tryweryn a couple of years ago would have been an easier one had a local public inquiry preceded the Bill.

Mr. Hayman: In connection with Dartmoor, the North Devon Water Board sought to promote a Bill in order to avoid a public inquiry.

Mr. Brooke: Perhaps I have been straying by mentioning other Bills. I do not think I had better make any comment on the North Devon Water Board or its Bill.
Those are the main points I wish to put to the Committee, and I have only this to add. Normally, if no Instruction had been moved it would be for the Committee itself to decide what was relevant to a consideration of the Bill, to receive evidence thereupon and finally to report its findings to the House. As one or two hon. Members have said, experience shows that every Committee on a Bill which has been already discussed in the House always pays attention to what has been said in the House.
The point that I wish to put to the House is this, and it is a matter for the House rather than for the Government. I suggest to the House that it should consider carefully whether it may not embarrass its own Committee if it agrees to this Instruction today. All the things which I have heard from hon. Members who feel strongly on this matter, in so far as they are relevant to the Bill, will clearly be discussed before the Committee, which will wish to obtain evidence. But I think that the House must be a little careful not to show distrust of its own Committees and, in particular, not to instruct one of its own Committees to cast the net of its inquiries widely beyond the field of relevance of the Bill.
To illustrate that point, this Instruction would require the Committee to inquire into a future reorganisation of the water supply industry in the South Devon area. I have little doubt that certain aspects of regrouping in South Devon may be relevant to the Bill, but I am not sure whether it would be wise to instruct the Committee to go into the whole question of any future regrouping in South Devon and whether it was relevant to the proposals in the Bill.
Furthermore—and I think that this point may weigh with the House more than what I have said about regrouping—the Instruction says that the Committee shall
inquire into the extensive and unco-ordinated depletion of the water resources of Dartmoor that has taken place in the past".
Certainly, the issue of present abstraction and depletion is relevant, but on this Instruction it appears to me that the Committee would be required to make a historical survey of abstraction of water from Dartmoor over hundreds of years past which may go far beyond the scope of current interest.

Mr. Hayman: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is misleading himself. The Committee surely cannot call witnesses but can only deal with the evidence put before it, either by the promoters or by the petitioners.

Mr. Brooke: I am not sure whether the hon. Member appreciates that this is an Instruction to the Committee
to inquire into the extensive and unco-ordinated depletion of the water resources of Dartmoor that has taken place in the past".
If there were no Instruction to the Committee, then the Committee could range over that subject as far as it thought it relevant to the Bill, and if it received evidence which in its opinion was irrelevant to the Bill, it could say "No". But if we pass this Instruction tonight we are saying to the Committee that in the view of this House every word in the Instruction is relevant to the Bill. Frankly, if we consider the Instruction carefully and examine the wording of it, I believe that the House will find that we shall be putting an excessive task on the Committee which goes beyond what is relevant to the Bill and which may delay its proceedings. We may, indeed, be embarrassing our own Committee and indicating that we do not trust it to judge for itself what is or is not relevant.
As the Minister concerned, it appears to me that I must put these considerations before the House. This is not a matter, let me hasten to say, for the Government. It is a matter for the House. But, having listened to the whole of the debate, it appears to me that even if this Instruction were not tabled the Committee would, in any case, have to range over all the things which have been said in the debate as


being relevant to the Bill, and my fear is—I am speaking very sincerely and simply seeking to do my duty to the House—that if we lake the matter out of the hands of the Committee and give it this Instruction from the House we may be imposing an excessive burden on the Committee and somewhat blurring its examination of what we want to hear from it about, namely, the wide considerations which are relevant to the Bill.

Mr. Hayman: On a point of order. I should like to ask whether a Committee appointed to deal with a Private Bill has any power to call witnesses or to investigate evidence that—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. Ede: We have had a very interesting debate, and the suggestions put before us by the Minister raise issues of considerable importance. We must not assume that everything that is is right. Grievous harm may have been done to the flow of water in the streams of Devonshire in the past, which should be taken into consideration when the Bill is being considered. The natural flow of water is one of the essential things in the health of the community, and it becomes more essential as the country becomes more urbanised. I would have thought, therefore, that the first part of the Instruction was a very important guide to the Committee, and I hope that it will not be deleted.
Undoubtedly, great anxiety was caused in the House by the passing of the Water Act, 1945, and by the subsequent administration. But it has hitherto been vague and not of much use as a guide either to Committees or to public opinion. I would not have minded so much if the Instruction had never been moved, but since it has been moved, if the House does not adopt it ingenious people in the offices of Parliamentary Agents will say that, because the House did not adopt it, it did not support it. That will mean that efforts to raise this sort of matter before future Committees, when it may be more relevant, will be discounted by people who wish to get undesirable proposals through.

Mr. Brooke: I hope the right hon. Gentleman did not think that I suggested that it would be for Parliamentary Agents to determine what is relevant. Clearly

it is for hon. Members on the Committees to determine that.

Mr. Ede: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has ever served on one of these Private Bill Committees. I did in my early days in the House, and I can say that the ingenuity displayed by Parliamentary Agents, the counsel they instruct, and the expert witnesses they call, show that they are past masters in the art—

Mr. Ellis Smith: Trust the legal men.

Mr. Ede: I am concerned not only with legal men but with expert witnesses coming from professions closely allied to my hon. Friend's calling. They are quite as bad as any lawyer when it comes to trying to cast dust in the eyes of Committees.
Since the Instruction has been moved for quite definite purposes, which have been well set out by the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme) and the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), it would be very disastrous to future proceedings if this Instruction were not pressed, and I sincerely hope that the hon. Member for Tavistock will not withdraw the Motion.

Sir H. Studholme: Sir H. Studholme rose—

Mr. Ede: If the hon. Member wishes to interrupt me I am willing to give way, but if lie wants to seek leave to withdraw the Motion I shall not accommodate him.
Much has been said about the tourist industry in connection with the Bill. Such connection as I have had with Dartmoor in recent years has been confined to efforts to prevent the hulk of the population becoming tourists. Dartmoor is a delightful place, but in recent years we have had some objectionable behaviour on the part of charabanc parties and other people who are alleged to be touring, who spend far too many consecutive minutes looking at the wretched people on Dartmoor, who may be there because of wrong things they have done in the past but ought not to be regarded as being among the people in whom tourists ought to take a special interest.
I hope that the hon. Member will stand to his guns, because I am certain that the passing of this Motion tonight will mean that instead of being faced


with the precedent of a Motion having been moved and then not pushed to a decision, promoters of these Bills will be faced with a precedent showing that this is the kind of wide-ranging Instruction which the House thinks ought to be given by Committees in respect of the promotion of Bills of this kind. I suggest that that is a very desirable precedent to establish, because if we pass the Motion tonight I do not think that it will be necessary to pass it in respect of similar Bills for many years to come.

8.30 p.m.

Sir H. Studholme: In spite of what has been said by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), for whose opinion I often have a great respect—and I am sure that what he said tonight was said with the best motives and intentions—having listened very carefully to what my right hon. Friend said, namely, that the Instruction in its present form might compel the Committee to obtain evidence which was not strictly relevant, I shall ask leave to withdraw the Motion. It would be a great waste of time to obtain irrelevant evidence, and I am sure that none of us wants to put unnecessary work on these Committees.
My right hon. Friend has said that everything which is relevant in the Instruction can and must be considered by the Committee. I am quite satisfied with that assurance, and I feel certain that my hon. Friends will agree with me. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Motion be withdrawn?

Mr. G. Lindgren: No.

Question put: —

The House proceeded to a Division; but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Ayes, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it.

BUCKS WATER BOARD BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now considered.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. John Hall: I beg to move, to leave out "now considered" and add "recommitted" instead thereof.
As we have gathered from the preceding debate on the Torquay Corporation (Water) Bill, the whole question of water supplies and the proper organisation of water undertakings presents a problem which is becoming increasingly complex and difficult. Indeed, it is probably true that many of the proposals for merger, amalgamation or take-over are bound to meet with strong opposition and disapproval from the undertakings and authorities likely to be affected thereby. It is probably for that reason that the Minister, in his Circular 52/56, of September, 1956, laid down the principle, in effect, that he was prepared to give favourable consideration to regrouping proposals, even where they happened to differ from the recommendations of his inspecting engineers, if those proposals met with general local approval and support.
I oppose the Bill because, first, it does not have local support. Indeed, it is violently opposed by the two major undertakings which it is proposed shall be taken over under the Bill. Secondly, I oppose it because it is unsound from the hydro-geological point of view, in so far as it does not provide an organisation which will ensure the proper use of water supplies. Thirdly, I oppose it because if it goes through as it stands the Bill will impose very considerable additional charges on all my constituents who are now served by either the High Wycombe or the Marlow water undertakings. Lastly, there are certain other objectionable features which I hope to bring out in the course of my speech.
It has been suggested to me that it is rather presumptuous on my part to question the Bill on the Floor of the House after it has received very careful consideration by a Select Committee. It is true that consideration of the Bill, with


three others which were taken at the same time, was spread over many months and took about 36 days in hearings. It is true also that many expert witnesses were examined and that the Committee was cluttered up by learned silks of one kind or another who advanced very weighty arguments. All of them, when one read them, sounded extremely convincing until one read the weighty arguments which followed.
Having read all the proceedings, should like to take the opportunity of congratulating—in this I am sure the House will agree with me—the Select Committee responsible under the chairmanship of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) on its fair and scrupulous conduct of the proceedings and the tremendous trouble it took to arrive at the true facts of these very complicated proposals and Bills. I do not envy the Committee its task. It performed it in an extraordinarily admirable way.
Nevertheless, the fact that a Bill has been considered by a Committee upstairs, even a Select Committee, has never been regarded as barring all hon. Members from subjecting that Bill to rigorous scrutiny on the Floor of the House. If one can take precedent from the courts outside the High Court of Parliament, it is often the case that a decision given by a learned judge who may be full of years and experience is not necessarily sacrosanct. One can go on appeal to another court, and it is not infrequently the case that the original decision is reversed.
I am in the position tonight, in speaking on behalf of my constituents who oppose the Bill very strongly, of making my first appeal to the High Court of Parliament. If I fail to convince the House, it will not be because the facts upon which my appeal is based are wrong but due entirely to the failure of my own advocacy. Later we have recourse to appeal by petitioning in the other place. Indeed, I gather that Petitions are already to be laid against the Bill, first by the local authorities in my constituency, secondly by the Metropolitan Water Board, for reasons which I will explain later, and lastly, I am given to understand, by the Buckinghamshire County Council whose original intention it was to petition but which changed its mind.
It is necessary to go a little into the previous history of the companies and undertakings in these areas to get some idea of the background against which the problem is set. The history of the attempts by the water undertakings in South Buckinghamshire and South Oxfordshire to meet the Minister's wishes to amalgamate into larger and more efficient units makes very interesting but slightly melancholy reading and goes as far back as 1943.
I will not weary the House with the many abortive attempts to amalgamate which were at one time encouraged or discouraged by the Ministry, but I should like to highlight the three main events in the past history of the companies and undertakings concerned. First, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the negotiations entered into by the Marlow, South Oxfordshire and Henley water companies in 1955 and 1956. They broke down and the Marlow company sought an interview with the Minister in November, 1956. That interview was not granted. But a month earlier the Minister had given an undertaking to the Berkshire County Council and the Reading Corporation not to approve any proposals for a merger which would affect the broad proposals of the Berkshire County Council for the establishment of its own water board.
The Minister at that time did not think it proper or necessary to inform the three companies to which I have previously referred of his undertaking in this respect, although he must have been perfectly aware that discussions had been going on to achieve a merger and amalgamation, and it was not until a month after giving this undertaking to the Berkshire County Council that he was informed that negotiations had broken down between Marlow and the other companies.
The other two incidents affect the High Wycombe Borough Council. In 1949, the High Wycombe Borough Council opposed the taking over of the rural districts water company by the Bucks Water Board but it was not allowed at the public inquiry to submit its alternative proposals. The council at that time protested to the Minister and claimed that it had been prejudiced in its opposition to the Bucks Water Board's proposals by its inability to advance these alternative proposals. The Minister in his reply indicated that


nothing need stop the council trying to form a joint water board within the area of the rural districts water company and, taking heart from that, the High Wycombe Borough Council in January, 1951, applied for an order to put its joint water board proposals into effect.
We heard earlier this evening that when an order is applied for, that is a case when a public inquiry can he held. In this case, no public inquiry was held and more than 12 months later the Minister rejected the application, giving among his reasons that there had been a lack of local agreement.
The lack of local agreement in this particular case arose from the withdrawal of the Marlow Urban District Council, representing about 5 per cent. of the water users in the area to be covered by the proposed undertaking, and its objection had nothing to do with the merits of the proposal as such but merely referred to the compensation likely to be paid to the outgoing board, a kind of objection that could be met quite easily by agreement or discussion or by an amendment of the proposed Bill.
That is in direct contrast to the treatment meted out by the Minister in the case of the Bucks Water Board. In its first application, the Minister rejected the application to form a larger water undertaking on the ground that one authority anyhow had not approved it. In this case, the Bucks Water Board Bill is recommended by the Select Committee with, I gather, the approval of the Minister, who would welcome it, I am sure, despite the fact that it attracts the opposition, and very strong opposition, not only of the Marlow and High Wycombe authorities and undertakings, but of the seven authorities that were originally to be grouped together in the other proposals under an alternative Bill which was to be considered at the same time.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: The hon. Member mentioned that the Bucks County Council was to petition the House of Lords against this Bill. Can he enlighten us on that matter because, as I understand it, the Bucks County Council was supporting the Bill?

Mr. Hall: I propose to come to that later in my speech if the hon. Gentleman

will allow me to do so. Despite the setbacks which have been suffered by the various companies in their attempts to amalgamate and to meet the Minister's desires and policy, they decided to frame another Bill, under the name of the South Bucks and Oxfordshire Water Bill, which was to include the High Wycombe Corporation, Henley, Marlow and South Oxfordshire water companies and the water undertakings of the Thames, Bullingdon and Wycombe Rural District Council.
Those proposals had the full support of all the local authorities concerned—with the exception of Wycombe Rural District Council which was neutral in the matter—supported by the Oxford County Council. In bringing this Bill forward, considerable reliance was placed on Circular 52/56, to which I referred earlier, whereby the Minister would approve arrangements entered into voluntarily, which met with considerable local approval and support.
Now I come to the development of the Bucks Water Board Bill itself. Realising what was happening, the Bucks Water Board promoted its own Bill, designed to absorb Marlow High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire and certain of the northern district undertakings. Certainly there was no support among the southern local authorities for this Bill. Originally the Bucks County Council was resolved to petition against it; but, on an understanding reached with the Bucks Water Board that the Board would be prepared to relieve, in part at any rate, the existing liability of the county council to meet any deficiency which arose out of the operation of the water board, the council withdrew its petition and instead petitioned against the South Bucks Bill. A very curious position arose as a result.

Sir Spencer Summers: Would not my hon. Friend think that this was a good moment to make clear to the House that the reason for the change in the attitude of the Bucks County Council, to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) referred, is that, whereas the council supported it originally, the petition is now the only way in which it can get permission given to the Bucks Water Board to get rid of its liabilities—something which both sides are anxious to achieve?

Mr. Hall: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention which has met my point in much better language than I could use. I hope he will forgive me, however, if I underline and develop it, because there is rather more in it than that.
When the Bill was submitted to the Select Committee in the first place, it did not have the Clauses in it which would relieve the Bucks County Council of its existing liability, so application was made by the Bucks Water Board to the Standing Orders Committee for permission to make amendments altering the liability of the county council. What it was seeking to do was to make Amendments which, if they had not been conceded by the Board, would have led the Bucks County Council to petition against the Bucks Water Board Bill. It was also seeking to transfer liability from itself as a county council to the other constituent authorities, which included the authorities which were fighting against it to promote their own Bill, the South Bucks Bill.
The application was properly rejected by the Standing Orders Committee. Since the inception of the Bucks Water Board, the county council has contributed, I am informed, £137,877 towards the deficiencies of the Board. We can understand, therefore, the anxiety to rid itself of at least a part of that liability, even if its tactics in trying to do so were perhaps a little curious.
Now we have a situation where the Bill has emerged from the Committee, unchanged as regards the liability of the county council, and so it is forced into the position of doing what it intended to do originally, and that is to petition against the Bill in the House of Lords. We find, therefore, that the Bucks Water Board Bill is left without any local authority support worth talking about.

Mr. Ede: Will the petition in the second House, if this Bill reaches it, lead it to reject the Bill or make the Amendments which have been described?

Mr. Hall: I understand that for technical reasons it is not possible to amend the Bill and therefore the county council must petition to reject the Bill entirely.
I now turn to the hydro-geological considerations. It is not denied that, from the point of view of the proper use of water

supplies, the Bill is not the proper answer. As originally constituted, the Bucks Water Board was almost wholly within the catchment area of the River Great Ouse. It spread into the Thames catchment area and now it is proposed that it should spread still further, despite the admitted—and I stress the word "admitted"—desirability of keeping a dividing line between catchment areas, particularly that of the Thames.
The water which would have been taken by consumers under the South Bucks Bill in an area which is in a natural catchment area would have been returned to that area in the form of treated effluent. A substantial part of the water which will be taken by the Bucks Water Board under this Bill will be lost to the Thames area altogether. Both the Metropolitan Water Board and the Thames Conservancy are very alarmed by the increasingly heavy demands which are being made on the Thames catchment area and are opposed to the transfer of water from one catchment area to another, as in this case.
No one would deny that it is necessary to find adequate supplies of water for the northern areas of Bucks where, from time to time, water has been scarce, but there are alternative sources. It is possible to develop the Great Ouse area, and reports have been prepared and there are recommendations which have been largely accepted to show that it is perfectly feasible to develop the Great Ouse catchment area to a point where it would supply the needs of the northern areas. It is agreed that that would take some little time, a period of anything up to 10 years, but in that interim period the South Bucks Board would be ready to enter into an agreement to provide the water that might be required by the Bucks Water Board to satisfy the needs of the northern areas until such time as they had developed their own alternative sources.
That proposal is supported by both the Metropolitan Water Board and the Thames Conservancy. It might be proper at this point to point out that the Metropolitan Water Board is under an obligation to let 170 million gallons of water a day go over Teddington Weir, whereas in many cases that amount has fallen to as little as 50 million gallons of water a day. This drain of water out of the Thames catchment area is a matter of


increasing anxiety and constitutes a very difficult problem.
If the Bill is passed without statutory restrictions on the export of water from one catchment area to another, it must create a most unfortunate precedent. Indeed, it is contrary to a principle set out by the Minister himself in a letter sent from his Department to the Gloucestershire County Council and dated 5th September, 1958. In the second paragraph of that letter it is stated that the Minister had regard to the desirability of keeping a dividing line between the Severn and Thames catchment areas, and the necessity, therefore, of keeping catchment areas divided as far as possible. The proposals enshrined in the Bucks Water Board Bill do violence to that idea.
The financial considerations have undoubtedly played a great part in the minds of those responsible for the Bucks Water Board Bill. The Board says that it needs an additional rateable value m order the better to equalise the charges between the sparsely populated rural areas of the north and the urban areas, and that is very understandable and acceptable. The alternative Bill of the South Bucks and Oxfordshire Boards provided exactly the same mixture of rural and urban areas and would have provided the same spread of charges as that which the Bucks Water Board seeks to provide in its area.
One of the reasons for the financial problems of the Bucks Water Board is that the Board undertook liability for the supply of bulk water to certain districts in the north, including some areas in the County of Northamptonshire, on terms against the advice of its own financial expert. That has landed the Board into considerable financial difficulty and it is one reason why the Board wants to lay its hands on the more profitable rateable areas of Marlow and High Wycombe.
Even if the Board continues to make losses, it does not go out of business, which is a very happy position to be in. Its losses are carried by the county council and by the constituent local authorities and eventually are passed down in turn to boroughs such as High Wycombe and local authorities such as Marlow. The deficiencies are made up, but whereas the deficiencies on the operations of

the Bucks Water Board in Buckinghamshire would have to be met by Buckinghamshire ratepayers, the supply of water to the areas in Northamptonshire which comes from the Bucks Water Board does not impose a similar liability on the Northamptonshire County Council. That will mean that Bucks ratepayers will be carrying part of the water supply losses, if they arise, on water supplied to those ratepayers living in Northamptonshire. That seems to me to be a very undesirable feature of the Bill.
I turn to the effect on my constituency. The effect of the Bill will be to increase the water charges by about 50 per cent. The proposals for charges and differentials are rather complicated and will be the subject, I understand, of a petition in the other place. I do not want to go into them in detail here, but one interesting fact comes out of them.
I understand that the High Wycombe and Marlow undertakings were quite willing to discuss with the Bucks Water Board the problem of the differential as it appears in the Bill as drafted, but that they were held at arm's length and could not discuss this problem because it was inferred that I was objecting to the Bill. The Board would discuss the question of the differential only if I, as the Member of Parliament for Wycombe, withdrew my objections.
I must confess that that seems to me to be the most extraordinary tactics to adopt. Although I am always reluctant to raise the plea of Privilege, I am not at all sure that it is not almost a breach of Privilege that indirect pressure should be brought to bear through a third party to persuade a Member of Parliament to withdraw his objection to a Bill before a body is prepared to enter into negotiations on a point with some of the Member's constituents.
I do not want to stress that, however, but I want to point out that the increase in charges likely to be suffered by my constituents as a result of the Bill is by no means the main reason for our opposition. The main reasons can be summarised very briefly. They are, first, that the Bill has been forced through in the teeth of the strongest local opposition; secondly, that it does not make proper use of the water supply; and thirdly, that acute resentment is felt by many people who are engaged in water undertakings in my constituency at what they


feel to have been Ministry bias, for which there is considerable supporting evidence.
The Select Committee itself had reason to question one Ministry action. Rightly or wrongly, these people believe that over the past history, from 1943 onwards, there has been a cavalier disregard of the proposals which they have made. They feel that an understanding has been entered into with other organisations and undertakings behind their backs and that they have suffered from a consistent hostility on the part of the Ministry.
I have described to the House the feelings expressed by my constituents which I have endeavoured to check as well as possible from proceedings at the Select Committee and from documents and exchanges of letters with the Ministry and water undertakings over a period of years. It seems to me from the evidence produced that there is, at any rate, some sign of a lack of flexibility of mind in the Department of the Ministry in accepting certain proposals from the various companies in the area we are discussing.
Again, we are opposed to the Bill because it appears to be against the principle laid down in the Ministry circular. It is a less efficient way of providing what is recognised to be a much needed supply of water for the north, because the southern areas are prepared to supply the necessary water for as long as may be required.
I come finally to the question of cost. These four Bills, only one of which we are now considering, were all taken together, as the House knows, and because of the length and complexity of the proceedings, the legal costs were very high. I wonder whether the House realises quite how high. The total cost is estimated at about £75,000 and the promoters of the Bill in which I was interested originally, the South Bucks Bill, will be called on to foot a bill for legal charges of about £25,000. One can measure the strong feelings of my constituents about this matter from the fact that they were prepared to accept—it may be reluctantly—:his heavy burden of cost in order to further the promotion of the Bill they thought right, and how resentful they feel at having imposed on them the Bucks Water Bill which they think embodies all the wrong principles.
I draw attention to the penultimate paragraph of the now familiar—I almost said notorious—letter which emanated from the Ministry, dated 17th October, 1958, to which considerable objection was taken, not only by the promoters of the Bills concerned, but by the Select Committee. The paragraph reads as follows: "He"—
that is, the Minister—
is also acutely aware of the difficulties and complexities of the tasks facing both the Committee and the promoters of the several Bills. This letter sets out his considered view of the best way in which the difficulties can he resolved. He appreciates, of course, that his view may not he accepted, or may not be accepted entirely, in that event, and since in any case there seems to be some hope of a satisfactory outcome in the southern part of the area covered by the Bills, he would wish to emphasise again to the Committee his anxiety about problems in the northern part, and to suggest that, if they consider that no satisfactory long-term solution can be devised until more definite information is available about future supplies in the area, and possibly also about reorganisation in neighbouring areas, it would be best to leave open for further consideration, when the information thought to be necessary is available, the proper grouping of the undertakings in the areas covered by the South Bucks and Oxfordshire Water Bill and by the Bucks Water Board Bill.
That springs from the fact that there are still available water supplies yet to be developed. It springs from the fact that if we were starting again, the Bucks Water Board would never have been formed. It springs from the fact that in a matter of a few years, probably, there will have to be a further reorganisation of the water undertakings in this area, and it lays stress on the point that if we cannot come to a real and satisfactory agreement by the Bill before the House, we should leave matters as they are until much more investigation has been carried out and there is a full and comprehensive report on which a proper organisation could be based.
In my constituency in the Chiltern Hills there is growing resentment as the facts about this Bill are becoming known. A storm is stirring which can best he summed up in the last four lines of Chesterton's poem, which will be known to many hon. Members, entitled, "A Ballade of the First Rain".
Prince, Prince Elective on the modern plan,
Fulfilling such a lot of peoples' wills,
You take the Chiltern Hundreds while you can—
A storm is coming on the Chiltern Hills".

9.10 p.m.

Major Sir Frank Markham: I beg to second the Motion.
I am sure the House will understand my position when I say that, in seconding this Motion, I am not familiar with the position in High Wycombe or in Marlow; but it is by seconding a Motion of this kind that I have the right to put forward my point of view on the Bill generally and to ask questions. If I get satisfactory answers to my questions, my opposition to the Bill, mild as it is at the moment, may well evaporate. I doubt whether the Minister will be able to give me answers to my questions, and I do not know who can do so, but I hope I shall get them.
My questions deal with the future of my constituency, which is in the northern part of Buckinghamshire and has the River Ouse running through it. This is probably the slowest and most thoroughgoing river in England. It is nearly always in flood in the winter, and it runs very low in the summer. We have consistently suffered from alternate flooding and water shortages at various points in the constituency ever since I have been connected with it, and that goes back over half a century, since I was born there. Even as recently as a year or two ago we have had very severe water shortages at Calverton and Shenley. Even now, the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, whom we are glad to see with us tonight, knows full well that the development of Bletchley and of Linslade has been not only severely curtailed but put into a straitjacket because of the uncertainties of their future water supplies.
The first question I must ask on the Bill is whether we, in North Buckinghamshire will have adequate water supplies not only for our present consumption but for our modest development in the future?

Sir S. Summers: Has the hon. Member sought this information from the promoters of the Bill?

Sir F. Markham: I have not sought it from the promoters of the Bill, but in other directions. I know that assurances have been given that existing requirements will be met for the present, but no one can give me the assurance that there will be enough for developments over the next few years, and it is that in which I

am interested. If my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers), who is spokesman for the promoters of the Bill, can give me that assurance I will welcome it. I hope that he will get a chance to speak and will be able to tell me categorically whether the promoters will give us adequate water supplies, not only for immediate demands but for our developing demands over a decade. If he can give me those assurances he will undermine my lukewarmness to the Bill.
My second point is that while we have these difficulties about knowing what our future supplies of water will be, we have also the difficulty of knowing what our financial position will be in the North. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall), in his very moderate and earnest speech, mentioned that there might be a great increase in the water rate in the High Wycombe and Marlow area. I hope that none of my constituents will feel that there is probability that the water rate in North Buckinghamshire will go down, because of that; on the other hand, that it is pretty certain that the water rate in the North Buckinghamshire area will go up in the near future.
I will welcome it if anybody, speaking for the promoters of the Bill, will tell me that there is any guarantee that the whole of the water rate will not go up in North Buckinghamshire under the water board proposed in the Bill, irrespective of whether we get adequate development water supplies or whether we do not. I think those are two very fair questions. On the answers to those questions my attitude to the Bill will rest.
I wish to go a little further. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe has mentioned some of the curious tactics of Bucks Water Board. I am not one who comes to this House with quarrels about the way I am treated by outside authorities, but the House will remember that only a second or two ago my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury asked if I had approached the promoters of the Bill. Let me come back with the reverse side of the picture.
The promoters of the Bill have not written to me about the Bill at all. They have not even informed me of their attitude. What they have done—I think it very questionable tactics—has been to


ring up and telegraph to certain local authorities almost putting the fear of God into them. The result was that over the weekend I had some hectic, frantic telephone calls from representatives of local authorities who had been almost scared out of their wits by things said to them on behalf of Bucks Water Board. I do not like those tactics. I do not think they are proper. If the members of Bucks Water Board did not like me seconding this Motion they should have had the courage to come to me about it.
The average Member of Parliament today is one of the most accessible creatures in the world. He is accessible to organisations outside his constituency. I say to Bucks Water Board Members that if they have anything to say about my attitude which they do not like let them have the courage to come to me. I promise that I shall not gobble them up.
The mover of this Motion mentioned the fact that whatever solution we may arrive at by this Bill and other Bills which may follow it is bound to be temporary and stop-gap simply because they will not conform with hydro-geological factors. I for one had hoped there would be sufficient time for the Select Committee to consider setting up a Great Ouse Water Board that would cover the whole area from Brackley to Cambridge. Obviously that will have to come. That is the way in which water supplies should be controlled and managed. Although the Select Committee went into this matter to a certain extent on the 26th day, I gather the reason it could not go further with it was that its instructions did not empower it to go outside the range of existing water board territories. Obviously development along hydro-geological lines has to come. I agree with the mover of the Motion that this Bill and others which will undoubtedly follow are merely stop-gaps in view of the fact that sooner or later this country must get down to utilising and developing its water supplies within catchment areas so that each area is self-contained.
Finally, I refer to another point which has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe, and that is the fantastic punishment there has been of public authorities by the present method of promoting Private Bills. My hon. Friend has said that the legal costs connected with the Bucks Water Board Bill

and the other Bills have amounted to something like £75,000. That seems a very large sum in order to get reasonable debate of matters of public importance. The cost to the very small borough of Buckingham, with a population of less than 5,000, was more than £1,125 to put up its case.
These punitive legal charges on public authorities ought not to be so high. I suggest to the Minister of Housing and Local Government, whom we are so happy to see here tonight, or to the Attorney-General, whom we are equally pleased to see, that while we have all the talents in the Ministry it is obvious that the genius of the Ministry has not yet been directed to find a way by which these debates can take place and changes can come without such inflictions on the ratepayers.
In seconding the Motion, I hope I shall get some answers to my main questions; first, whether this Bill guarantees the future of water supplies to North Buckinghamshire as a developing area; and, second, whether there is any guarantee that there will not be a considerable increase in the water rates in the not too distant future. May I add, finally, that I agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe said about unnecessary inflictions on the Bucks County Council in favour of Northamptonshire. We are paying for Northamptonshire, and if my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is to intervene in the debate, I hope he will realise how generous we always are where Northamptonshire is concerned.

9.22 p.m.

Sir Spencer Summers: I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) will permit me to deal with the points he raised after commenting on some of those raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall).
I hope the House will not take exception to the procedure here adopted for challenging the findings of a Select Committee if hon. Members have good reason to doubt the advice tendered. Having said that, they must, I think, accept the judgment of the House that that attempt to challenge the recommendations must be justified by arguments advanced here. I hope to be able to show that the


arguments brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe should not be accepted by this House.
My hon. Friend sought to sustain his argument by saying that this proposition did not have local support and that such local authorities as took a different view were, in his own words, not worth talking about. That is a grossly misleading description of what, in fact, is the position. There is no doubt that High Wycombe Corporation, Marlow Urban District Council and Buckingham Corporation formerly opposed this Bill. Without wearying the House with a long list of names, may I say that I have here a list of no less than seven local authorities in Buckinghamshire, one in Hertfordshire, and three local authorities in Northamptonshire—

Mr. John Hall: I think my hon. Friend is unwittingly misquoting me. I said that it had no support from the southern local authorities.

Sir S. Summers: It may be that the hon. Gentleman seeks to turn the searchlight of opinion on to the southern end of this proposition, but this is a Bill which deals with a far greater area than merely that which he represents and the neighbouring parts of Buckinghamshire. It relates to a very large part of central Buckinghamshire, to my constituency, and to north Buckinghamshire, which is represented in part by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham. Therefore, it is quite misleading for people to imagine that this proposition does not have the support of a very large number of influential and important local authorities. I think it is only right that that should be made plain.
It was sought to suggest that by what appears at first sight to be a change of front by the Buckinghamshire County Council there might be some catch in this—that whereas it sought to support it in the first instance it had had second thoughts. In an intervention, I took the opportunity of bringing out the fact that this is the only technical opportunity open to the Buckinghamshire County Council to register its wish, which is supported by the promoters of the Bill, to be relieved of its financial liabilities. It is suggested that that is something which should be looked upon with a certain

amount of alarm, and, indeed, I will make further comment on that in a moment. When it is noted that the product of a 4d. rate was originally £8,000 and that under the terms of the Bill, with all the partners in the scheme taken into account, the product of a 4d. rate is £50,000, the prospect of having to fall back on the Bucks County Council for the financing of the deficit is, in the new circumstances, a very different story indeed from what it was in the past.
When reference was made to the discharge of its responsibilities by the Bucks. Water Board, it was implied that there was something wrong if, in the past, the Board had had to fall back on the Bucks County Council for a sum of, I think, £140,000 over a period of years—

Sir F. Markham: To be accurate, £137,000.

Sir S. Summers: It must be recognised that the Bucks. Water Board could not operate at all unless it could rely on the local authority to deal with any potential deficit that would, or might, arise from the water arrangements in the rural areas. It is rather a distortion to describe this falling back on the county council to pay a deficit as an instance of efficiency. Rather, it is the use of the inevitable assistance of the county council—

Mr. Hall: For the sake of the record, my hon. Friend should bear in mind that he is misquoting me again. I was not criticising the Bucks. County Council for having paid £137,000 to meet the board's deficiencies. I was merely saying that as a result one could understand the county council's anxiety to rid itself of that liability in future.

Sir S. Summers: On the financial position, both my hon. Friends have contrasted the position of the Northamptonshire County Council with that of the Buckinghamshire County Council. What neither made clear is that there is no provision for representation of the Northants County Council on the council of the Bucks Water Board. If, therefore, the county council were put in a position of having to finance any deficit, it would, in this context, be ineffective. It would be taxation without representation.
Moreover, that part of Northants with which we are here concerned is a very


small part indeed of the area covered by the North ants County Council's activities. There is no need to find some skeleton in the cupboard by contrasting the position of the Northants. County Council to that of the Bucks County Council.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe asked, in effect: why must we have this arrangement? Why cannot the willingness of the High Wycombe and the Marlow undertakings to supply water to the north be given effect to without a permanent arrangement such as is inherent in the Bill? My understanding is that for such an arrangement to be fulfilled for a period of more than ten years a very elaborate Parliamentary procedure is required. The Thames Conservancy and the Thames Water Board would not tolerate an arrangement suitable for North Bucks for supplying water over the border for a period longer than that—

Mr. Hall: May I ask the source of my hon. Friend's information that leads him to say that it would require very elaborate Parliamentary procedure to enable the southern part of the county to supply water to the northern part for a period of more than ten years?

Sir S. Summers: I can only say that that is the constitutional position. It came to light only towards the latter part of the Select Committee's proceedings that the position in which the Board was placed by its original document did not permit it to supply water outside its area, if objection was taken, for a period longer than ten years—

Mr. Hall: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend again, but this is a very important matter—as, I am sure, he realises. Can my hon. Friend refer to any part of the proceedings where this position was referred to, or where it carne to light?

Sir S. Summers: I have a number of points to make and, without wishing in any way to evade the point, I think that the answer to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe would come with very much more conviction from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke). If he succeeds in catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, I feel sure that he will think it relevant to comment on that aspect.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham surprised me very much. He seemed to tell us that he had come here and had used the opportunity of this procedure almost exclusively to obtain certain information which was vital to his constituents and to his interests in North Bucks, information which he had not at that time managed to secure. There must have been any number of opportunities open to him in the course of the last few months to ascertain whether the effect of the regrouping of undertakings will enable adequate water supplies to be forthcoming for Bletchley and elsewhere. Since he has not availed himself of those opportunities—

Sir F. Markham: The hon. Member has no justification for saying that.

Sir S. Summers: I am only saying that there were opportunities of which, for some reason which I have not grasped, my hon. and gallant Friend has not availed himself. Since he has not done so, he remains in ignorance of the effect of the Bill on places like Bletchley. I can only tell him that there is no doubt in my mind that one of the objects of the Bill is to ensure that there will be, through the agency of the Bucks Water Board, adequate supplies for Bletchley and North Bucks, not merely for their immediate requirements, but for all reasonably foreseeable developments over the years.

Mr. Hall: Mr. Hall rose—

Sir S. Summers: I am dealing with the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham. I think that I should confine myself to one point at a time.
Although I am not a member of the Bucks Water Board—nor can I offer guarantees—I can tell my hon. and gallant Friend in all sincerity that that is my clear understanding of the effect of the Bill.
Then my hon. and gallant Friend raised the question of the effect on the water rates. I imagine that he is right in saying that the cost of the procedure on the various local authorities will ultimately be reflected in some form or another on water rates. That is no reason for rejecting the advice of the Select Committee. The prospects of obtaining not


merely a cheap source of water from the south but being in partnership with a rich Authority are just the two elements best devised to ensure that there shall not be an unreasonable increase in the water rates in that part of Bucks with which be is concerned.
I have dealt as best I can with the various points raised in the two speeches of my hon. Friends. There is a danger, were I to stop there, of the House failing to grasp what underlies the Bill and the fundamental consideration to be taken into account in judging the Motion.
The real reason why support should be given to the recommendations of the Select Committee—and I echo most enthusiastically the commendation and praise already accorded to it—is that, in terms of the Minister's requirements throughout the country, this is a proposition for marrying, in effect, a rich area with a poor area, a wet area with a dry area. In intelligent grouping to ensure that the water supplies of the country are deployed to the best advantage of the people of this country it is essential that there should be an element of marrying between those who are rich in water and rich in rateable value and those who are poor in water and poor in rateable value. It is precisely to accomplish this very end that the Bill and the recommendation of the Select Committee, as I understand it, have been brought forward.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe says, "Look at the terrible effect on the water rates of my constituents", I can only reply to him that, if there is to be grouping between areas rich in water and rateable value and areas poor in water and rateable value, those who are better off are inevitably obliged, over a period—I shall come to that—to make some sacrifice in the interests of those who are poorer in water and rateable value. One cannot have it both ways.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe alluded to the fact that, as a consequence of the Bill, the water rates would double for the ratepayers of High Wycombe. I think it would have been fairer if he had told the House that that would not happen for ten years, that for the first five years there will be a 40 per cent. discount off the rates which would

otherwise be charged, and for the succeeding five years there would be a 20 per cent. discount off the rates charged.

Mr. John Hall: I had no misunderstanding about the period of five years when there was to be a higher differential than in the later period, but I can assure by hon. Friend that, even taking that into account, the first impact of the additional water rates plus the meter rates and charges will, in many cases, impose a 50 per cent. increased charge upon my constituents.

Sir S. Summers: I cannot tell whether there is any individual whose circumstances can be cited as an illustration of the very severe effect of the Bill as described by my hon. Friend, but my information is this. The revenue from the High Wycombe area in present conditions is £57,500 a year. Under the new conditions, it would be £107,000, but subject to a 40 per cent. discount, bringing it to £65,000. The difference is not all that great at any rate, it is not more than about 15 per cent. at the most between the rate paid now and the rate which would prevail. In the case of Marlow, the figures are £46,000 in present conditions and £50,000 in the new conditions, a difference of about 10 per cent.
In considering this matter, it is very important that the House should bear in mind the broader considerations of linking the rich with the poor in both senses. It is an inevitable consequence of that that sacrifices will be called for, but I believe that after all the consideration has been given to this matter that is the right course to take. I do not for one moment think that any argument which has been advanced tonight has not already been considered fully by the Committee which dealt with this matter. While I do not at all complain about the procedure which is adopted, I hope that on reflection, particularly after hearing the Minister, my hon. Friends will not seek to press the matter to a Division. I believe that the House would do right to accept the advice of the Select Committee.

Mr. Hall: My hon. Friend has referred to me on several occasions and suggested that I was not completely fair in my presentation of the case to the House. Would he not agree that, in the first place, I did point out that the alternative proposals under the South Bucks scheme also provided for a mixture of rich and poor


areas only by a method which made a much more efficient and economic use of the water resources than the Bucks Water Board does. That is one of the principal reasons for our objection. Secondly, I pointed out that the increased charges to our constituents formed by no means the main reason for our objection. We appreciate that there may be circum- stances in which we might have to pay increased charges. We object to paying them in this case because we think that the proposed organisation is inefficient and inadequate.

Sir S. Summers: I think that that was an interjection, and I may, perhaps, say another word or two. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for enabling me to make one further comment arising out of that topic which I should otherwise have omitted, namely, that, whatever may have been the effect or intention of previous attempts at grouping, the House can do no more than take the position as it is at this moment in judging whether to accept the advice of the Select Committee. The South Oxfordshire Water Company and the Henley-on-Thames Water Company are already taken care of in the South Oxfordshire scheme approved by Parliament. We are, therefore, left only with the High Wycombe and Marlow undertakings in relation to the need to marry the poorer areas. Other plans are things of the past. Therefore, in the light of current conditions, whatever merit there may have been in the arguments which my hon. Friend would have advanced, they are not relevant at the moment because Parliament has approved the other scheme.

9.41 p.m.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I think that I am the only Member representing a constituency in Buckinghamshire who sits on this side of the House. I acknowledge immediately that the Borough of Slough and the urban district area of Eton do not come within the provisions of the Bill. Nevertheless, I venture to speak because both Slough and Eton are in the area of the Buckinghamshire County Council and because we feel very closely our sense of unity with the other parts of the county to which we belong.
The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) said that if his view was not carried in the House it would be due to

some failure in his advocacy. I should like to say, without presumption, that he should not feel that at all. I thought that he put his argument extraordinarily convincingly, and at one moment he almost convinced me. I should also like to say to him that I do not think that any hon. Member will complain because, after consideration of the Bill by a Select Committee, a Member of the House objects to the decision reached by the Select Committee. I hope that that right will always be maintained by Members of the House of Commons.
There was quite unusual discussion and consideration of this Bill in the Select Committee. If I am informed correctly, it was considered at greater length than any Private Bill in a Select Committee since the year 1898. Thirty-six days were devoted to a full consideration of the details, and, therefore, while one does not object to the hon. Member making the proposal which he has made, I think that the House should bear in mind the thorough discussion of the Bill which took place in the Select Committee. I think that those who come from the authorities which were represented on that Select Committee will also have in mind the very heavy cost when Private Bills are before such Committees. The hon. Member for Wycombe said that the legal costs of the Bill have already reached £75,000. If the Bill is recommitted, I cannot see an end to the costs which are likely to fall upon the local authorities concerned.
I say to the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Sir W. Markham)—I almost called him my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, because in a personal sense I have that feeling very strongly—that I will come to his arguments later. If I do not now deal with the points which he raised it is not out of absence of consideration for the points which he put to the House.
As I understand it, there is no disagreement among hon. Members as to the need for the regrouping of water authorities. It is accepted by the Government, and I believe that it is accepted in principle even by the Buckinghamshire authorities who are opposing the Bill. I hope that there is no opposition to the Bill on the ground that it would hand over the undertaking to a public board. There has been a good deal of criticism of some of the Board's activities, but I


would draw the House's attention to the Minister's Report on the Bill. Paragraph 2 (e) refers to:
No discrimination between publicly owned and company undertakings in considering appropriate groups and the type of organisation most appropriate for the new unit".
The Water Board is the largest water undertaking in Buckinghamshire, and that is a formidable reason for suggesting that if there has to be a co-ordination of water supplies it should be under the Board.
I do not want to prejudice the case that I am putting forward, but every time I listen to debates on the question of water supplies I come to the conclusion that we shall reach a final solution of the problem only by nationalisation of water supplies on the broadest scale.
I have said that the hon. Member for Wycombe almost convinced me at one point. It was when he suggested that the Buckingham County Council, which had originally supported the Bill, had withdrawn its support and was petitioning another place against the Bill. As I understand it, however, the county council remains in favour of the Bill, and is adopting the technical method of a petition to another place only in order to raise the financial issue referred to by the hon. Member. I hope that the hon. Member for Wycombe did not create the same impression among other hon. Members as he did temporarily upon me by suggesting that the county council was now opposed to the Bill.
Not merely is the county council a supporter of the Bill; with the exception of the High Wycombe Council and the Marlow Urban District Council, which are against it, and the Wycombe Rural District Council which is neutral, all seventeen local authorities in Buckinghamshire are in favour of the Bill.

Sir F. Markham: Surely the hon. Member remembers the intense opposition of the Buckingham Corporation, and the Linslade Corporation, and the complete neutrality of Wolverton, all of which authorities are in one area.

Mr. Brockway: I do not want to misrepresent the position, particularly in the southern part of Buckinghamshire, but as I understand it at present, and from the discussions which took place in the

Select Committee, the line-up of local authorities is as I have described.
I want to refer particularly to the position of the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham. I was surprised to hear him second the Motion, even for the purpose of seeking information. I cannot imagine any water Measure which would be of more value to the area that he represents that that which is before the House this evening. I have on other occasions pleaded that the richer countries of the world should give to the poorer and undeveloped territories of the earth. That same principle is the main principle of the Bill.

Mr. Ede: Hear, hear.

Mr. Brockway: It is that the richer areas of Buckinghamshire should serve the poorer areas of our county. The hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham, who seconded the Motion, comes from the part of Buckinghamshire which should be most fully served by the Bill if it came into operation.
I know our county. I have had deputations from our school teachers, from schools where there is no water supply, from schools in the hon. and gallant Member's constituency where there are no water closets and no drains.

Sir F. Markham: The hon. Member could not have been up in the Buckinghamshire division since the war if he thinks that that is the truth.

Mr. Brockway: I am referring to a deputation of school teachers which has been to me.

Sir F. Markham: They might be short, but they are not that short.

Mr. Brockway: There are still schools in Buckinghamshire which are in that position. If in North Buckinghamshire that evil has now been removed, I congratulate the hon. Member, particularly because the difficulties are greatest in the area which he represents.

Mr. John Hall: I fully appreciate the need of water in the northern area of Buckinghamshire and nobody denies it. It was never proposed to deny the right of water to that area. It is quite possible for the undertakings of Marlow and High Wycombe to supply to the northern area all the water that it requires.
Indeed, under the Bill, they will still have to draw it from the Thames catchment area, from which it would have been supplied by the other undertakings.

Mr. Brockway: Four Bills were considered by the Select Committee. After its thorough discussion, the Select Committee came to the conclusion that the most effective service to the County of Buckingham as a whole, and particularly its poorer areas, would be under the Bill that we are discussing this evening. It is the principle of service to the poor areas by the richer areas of the county which I am particularly pleading tonight.
I make that plea even though I appreciate that as the organisation of water supplies extends to broader areas, the Borough of Slough would probably have to sacrifice more than is asked of the Borough of High Wycombe under the Bill. Usually, when this House discusses these Bills, there is a conflict between the county and the borough, but those who represent boroughs—richer areas—have the duty of speaking and voting in this House in a way that will enable the less-developed areas to receive adequate services.
I make my next point to the hon. Member for Wycombe. The Bill is generous to the consuming public of Wycombe. They are the most fortunate. Because they are now rich in water, however, and because their water rate is low, the Bill establishes a differential for the consumers of Wycombe compared with the other parts of the county. In the first five years, the water consumers in Wycombe will pay 40 per cent. less than the standard charges. After those five years, they will pay 20 per cent. less. At the end of the 10 years, there will still be a right of appeal to the Minister if the population of Wycombe feels that the charges are too high.
One might remark to the hon. Member for Wycombe that under the South Bucks and Oxfordshire Bill, which has been supported by the Corporation of Wycombe, the charges would have been little different for several years from the charges which are to be made under this Bill.
When it was shown that the charges would be increased 50 per cent., reference was made to the cost of meters, but it should be remembered that the Bill is

much more generous to the consumer on meter than would have been the Bill covering the South Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire scheme? Under the present Bill, the differential will apply to consumers on meters. Under the other Bill, it would not have applied in that way. The difference in the charge in the case of Marlow is so little that it was felt unnecessary to apply a differential at all.
I conclude by emphasising that, while we have discussed other matters tonight, the real issue is that it is the duty of those who are better off to come to the aid of those who, for geographical reasons, cannot obtain water so easily. It may not be a principle which will appeal to hon. Members opposite, but I believe that essentially in the Bill there is the Socialist principle that there should be the fullest equality in the ability to receive what nature can supply, and that where people are in an area in which water is costly and limited they should be served from areas which are better off in that respect.

9.57 p.m.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: I am rather sorry that the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) should have finished his speech on a slightly party political note because, having been Chairman of the Select Committee which considered the four Bills, I should like to make clear that the four of us who sat on the Committee—two from either side of the House—can all honestly say that at no single stage at any time throughout the thirty-six days' hearings did party political considerations come into our thoughts at all.
I do not believe that it is the duty of a Chairman of a Select Committee of this kind at this stage of the proceedings to go too far into the merits one way or another of a Bill under consideration. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) said that he was appealing on behalf of his constituents to a certain part of the High Court of Parliament. Having presided in a quasi-judicial position, as we all do when we sit on these Committees, it would be hardly appropriate if the quasi-judicial Member then proceeded to plead one case or the other in the higher Court. Therefore, I propose to confine my remarks to some fairly general observations about the four Bills and then to speak


to the main Motion before the House, that the Bill, as amended, be considered, so that some notice may be taken of the Report from the Select Committee which was printed on 9th February.
As to the general considerations, whatever may have happened that should not have happened in the past, whether the agent in making it happen was the Ministry, a board, a company, a local authority or anyone else, the fact remains that when we are dealing with problems of water supplies we have to deal with the situation as it now is and as it is likely to develop in the future.
There may have been mistakes in the past and I have no doubt whatsoever that, in the light of experience gained over the years, if everyone were able to start all over again, a great many things would happen which would result in something entirely different from the situation with which we now find ourselves confronted. In no particular area is that more true than in the suburban development westwards of London.
One of the important things which has come out of the consideration of the two Buckinghamshire Bills has been the fact that the local authorities over the years have decided to allow their housing and other development to go ahead all too often without any consideration whatsoever having been given to the problem of water supply and particularly to the hydro-geology of it. Of all the witnesses who appeared before the Committee of which I was Chairman, I would say that none was more impressive than Dr. Buchan, who is the head of the Water Department of the Geological Survey. He was a most authoritative witness. No doubt if local authorities do not wake up to the fact that if they go on developing their areas without regard to what the water situation is underground they will have only themselves to blame if they run into great water shortages. We drew attention to that in our Report and I hope to hear from the Minister tonight that he will consider the possibility of implementing what we recommend there, namely:
The Committee would strongly urge upon the Minister the desirability of all local authorities taking full advantage of the valuable sources of information before embarking on developments which could involve problems of water supply

There is a first-class witness there for any water authority or water undertaking that likes to consult him and I feel that it is a great pity that more advantage has not been taken of this in the past.
We must face up to certain realities of the day and in doing so may have to go absolutely contrary to what hydro-geological arguments might dictate. The situation on the surface of the earth—the hydro-geography as opposed to the hydro-geology—sometimes means that we cannot allow hydro-geology to predominate. The position of rivers and the populations along them—all these things come in, and as fast as one thinks that one has solved one problem one finds another cropping up and a different list of criteria has to be borne in mind while considering it.
Any hon. Member who has followed the proceedings will know that early on I did my best as Chairman to try to obtain an agreed set of criteria against which all four Bills might be judged, but the longer one went on the clearer it became that every promoter and petitioner was going to use precisely the criteria which best suited his own argument and disregard the others.
I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe that I would not for one moment suggest that he should have done anything other than he has done tonight. I know that in his position I should do my best to speak up for my constituents in a matter of this kind. I hope whoever the people were who suggested to him that he ought not to have done it, be did not in his mind include me, because I would certainly say that it was almost his duty to raise this matter if he felt that there was any dissatisfaction with the decision which the Committee came to.
I should like to draw attention to another matter which I think answers the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers). In our Report we have specifically stated that we do not wish to limit the period during which water could be extracted from the Thames catchment area and discharged into that of the Great Ouse. But we did say that we assumed it would be only marginal amounts that were so transferred, and we said in our Report that the water authorities in other areas


should make strenuous efforts to develop their own water resources.
I have no doubt that the day will come, some years ahead, when the Great Ouse scheme is completed and even if we knew today that the first stage could be completed, I am quite certain we could not know today where that water ought to be transferred. It may be that in the years to come it will go to the Bucks Water Board area and southern Northamptonshire, but it may be that the demands of other areas further east will be even greater and I do not believe that it would be possible—and this is one of the great difficulties which the Committee had to face—to say today which it ought to be.
If, as I would agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham), there has been an excessive cost to the promoters, I would say that of all the promoters who are most responsible—if promoters have any responsibility for these costs—none is more so than the South Bucks and Oxfordshire promoters, because it was they who asked us to look at the possibility of the development of the Great Ouse scheme, and that at once added ten days to the proceedings.
Therefore, although in the Chair I was conscious all the time of the immense cost these matters involve, I hope that it will be appreciated that it is not only Parliament that is responsible for the length of time these proceedings have taken, but that others also have their part in this. I hope that in years to come we may rest assured that never again, under the water regrouping measures desired by Parliament, will a situation arise in which four Bills have to be considered simultaneously by the same Committee.
It is important that real frankness should be adopted from the word "go" when considering water regrouping. Dealings which are not open lead in the end to bitterness, misunderstanding and, as we have seen, immense cost. If there had been complete openness by all parties from the beginning and throughout these transactions—and I absolve no one completely of some dilatoriness in this respect—I believe we could have got a solution much more easily because four Bills would not have had to be presented to Parliament simultaneously.
Those are very general observations and I want to come to two particular matters in the Report that we have agreed on this Bill. It was drawn to our attention in the course of proceedings that there is a difference in the rate of compensation to local authority employees if the procedure for regrouping is done by means of a Water Order instead of by means of a Water Bill. I should have thought that it must be palpably absurd that there should be a difference in the two scales. We have drawn attention to this and it has been drawn to the attention of the House before. It has been felt by Committees in the past, as it was felt by this Committee, that it would be wrong for any one Committee to attempt to lay down a principle for everybody to follow in the future. It is a matter which ought to be decided by Parliament. It was for that reason that we drew attention to it in our special Report.
The same thing applies also to the number of years' compensation for loss of office to directors under water companies regrouping. The practice in the past has nearly always been seven years' compensation unless some other figure has been agreed by all parties. In this instance an attempt was made to make it five years. Again the Committee felt it would he wrong to attempt to lay down a new principle to be followed for all time. Again the Committee thought it was a matter which the House ought to be asked to consider if any changes were required.
Therefore, I hope that whatever may have been the faults of this Committee —and I am certainly not trying to absolve myself of any faults there may have been —I would say that we tried to deal with this matter completely dispassionately. We tried to deal with the matter on the evidence put before us. We gave every opportunity for additional evidence to be adduced, if we were so requested. We gave every opportunity for investigations to be made into possible alternative schemes, and at the end we came down decisively in favour of the Bill.
Nothing that my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe or my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham said has made me wish to change my mind in any way. Other hon. Members of the Committee are entitled to


take whatever view they like, but in my opinion nothing has been said tonight which should make us change our minds.

10.10 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): There are two things on which I suspect that the House is unanimous. The first is that the matters with which we have been dealing are exceedingly intricate. The second is that by common consent the House owes a deep debt of gratitude to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) and his three colleagues, from both sides of the House, who sat for no fewer than thirty-six days on these four Bills. If I say that it would be the general desire that there should never be another occasion when four Bills have to be examined collectively and comprehensively over a period of thirty-six days, I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend and his colleagues will not take that amiss. I am expressing sympathy and appreciation.
As he would endorse, I believe, I have taken a close personal interest in these complicated matters, and I say at once that if any criticism is voiced anywhere against my Department I accept that as criticism of me, because my Department has been working in this, as in all else, under my direct instructions. I have no wish to take up the time of the House by seeking to defend myself against any such criticisms, which tend here to cancel one another out. I could do so, but I want to mention only one, the allegation that I or my Department have in some way a prejudice against water companies and in favour of local authorities or joint boards.
If the House had before it a comprehensive list of all the regrouping efforts which are now going on, that alone would invalidate the criticism, because it would be seen that I am giving my encouragement in a number of cases where the nucleus or centre of regrouping would be a company rather than a local authority or a joint board. That is one piece of evidence which I can give; but in this connection I should also like to read a sentence from a circular which I sent out on 23rd July, 1958. I said:
There are some areas where the most efficient regrouping would be achieved by

water companies taking over the undertakings of neighbouring local authorities; and elsewhere there are companies which ought to be bought out by joint boards of local authorities. The Minister will consider proposals affecting companies on their merits as they affect the efficient supply of water in the area
That is a correct and comprehensive statement of my attitude towards the matter, and if I were in fact playing a biased game I would hardly have sent out a circular incorporating a paragraph of that character as recently as last July.
There is another point on which I have been criticised in connection with this group of Bills. Indeed, the Committee is also made the target of criticism. This is to the effect that there was a project for a voluntary amalgamation in South Bucks, and Oxfordshire and that that ought to have been put through, because regrouping by voluntary action is superior to regrouping by compulsion. To that last general proposition I assent, but clearly one has to look at every one of these cases on its merits and in its context.
I should have welcomed the possibility of encouraging and endorsing a voluntary amalgamation here, had it not been that that voluntary amalgamation would have left completely unsolved the water problems of an area to the north. I will come to that in a moment.
It troubled me that my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) said that some people had suggested that it was rather presumptuous of him to intervene at this stage. Certainly nothing could be further from my thoughts. Surely every one of us, sent to represent his constituency in the House, must claim and assert the right to speak for that constituency on an occasion like this. Whether he persuades the House to agree with him is another matter, but while the House should clearly show respect for the views which have been expressed by a Committee reporting back to it, nevertheless every one of us must retain his responsibilities to his constituency. If I may say so, I thought that my hon. Friend put his case on behalf of his constituents with great cogency, and obviously as a result of considerable research.
I agreed very much with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely—to whose work I have just paid tribute—when he said that when we are


examining any of these water questions through a Committee of the House, we must have regard to the situation as it now exists. One may have all kinds of regrets about the past. One may wish that the situation did not exist. But the fact remains that it does exist, and one has to grasp that situation, and often to grasp it speedily, because one has to make provision years ahead if an area of the country which is relatively waterless is to have in time the water which it needs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) spoke of the high cost of Private Bills. The question of legal expenses is not one for me. Had there been a way without promoting Bills and without prolonged examination before the Committee of solving the complex conundrum which was presented by the aspirations of the Promoters, certainly that would have been a good thing; but the Promoters deemed that to be impossible, and one cannot take away from them the right of access to Parliament.
In this case, as I see it, the South Bucks and Oxfordshire undertakers promoted a Private Bill because they wanted to form an entirely new company, and that they could not do by Water Order. They wanted to go further than the taking-over of the other undertakings by one central undertaking. The proposed formation of an entirely new company required a Private Bill. Thereafter, as I understand it, the Bucks Water Board found that it would have no status to petition against that Private Bill unless it promoted a Bill of its own. That was how the clash arose.
I do not want to enter into party political matters, but I hope that I may be allowed to say that one can solve all these questions without the drastic step of nationalising the whole water supply system, which is a subject which I think might be discussed on another occasion and in a wider context. In fact, in considering regrouping, it is possible to proceed very much more cheaply by means of a Water Order; but if the House were to say that that should always be done—and it is a matter for the House—it would be denying a right of access to Parliament which at present exists. Suppose that such a case as this intricate one were to arise again elsewhere. It certainly seems to me that to see whether

there was any chance of agreement, it would be well worth while for all the parties concerned to impose on themselves a self-denying ordinance not to promote any one Bill—because the promotion of one Bill often stimulates the promotion of others—and to investigate whether there was any conceivable possibility of achieving the desired result, or maybe a compromise result, by means of one or more Water Orders. But in this case those concerned felt it was essential to promote Bills, and the heavy and unavoidable expense flowed from that.
In the debate on the previous Bill, I reminded the Committee of the statutory responsibility upon me regarding the conservation of water, and, if I may put it broadly in this way, of trying to see that everyone in the country is able to get the water he needs. The point which stuck out above all others in the whole complex problem before the Committee was the urgent need for water in the northern part of the area of the Bucks Water Board. Frankly, it would not have concerned me much whatever recommendations to the House the Committee might have chosen to make regarding other parts of the very large area covered by these four Bills. But if by any chance the Committee had brought the Bill back to the House in a form which did not seem to me effectively to solve the need for water in that northern part of the area of the Board, I say to the House frankly that it would have been incumbent on me during the Third Reading debate to point out that, were the Bill passed in that form, it would seem to me that Parliament would be making it impossible for me to fulfil my statutory duty under Section 1 of the Water Act. Fortunately nothing of that kind has occurred.
I would not for one moment presume to say that I have managed to give as detailed a study to the whole complex position as did the Committee. But I have addressed myself to it with the duties placed upon me by the Water Act in mind, and I can say in all honesty to the House that this Bill appears to me to be acceptable by the tests which the Water Act requires me to apply. I am not saying that the Bill has been reported back to the House in a form which attains perfection. But certainly I am not going to take exception to anything which my hon. Friend


and his Committee have recommended here. By the essential tests it is perfectly acceptable.
This Bill solves the problem of the area which is acutely short of water. That is my answer to the first question asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham). No one can prophesy what will happen if the demand develops in some totally unexpected way. Nevertheless, so far as one can anticipate the demand in that area—which is of such great concern to me—the Bill will solve the problem, and I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that I can see no other way in which it could have been solved. On reading the proceedings and its findings, it would seem that the Committee itself ultimately took the same view.
My hon. and gallant Friend asked for an assurance about charges, and whether I can assure him that if this Bill goes through it will not lead to a material increase in the water charges imposed on his constituents by the Bucks Water Board. It is always dangerous to prophesy about these financial matters, but I see no reason why the provisions of this Bill should bring about any material change in the water rates which his constituents have to pay. It may be that one day the area of which we are speaking will be supplied from the Great Ouse. I know that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) considers that a strong possibility.
I cannot see how such a supply could conceivably have been organised in time to meet the present urgent need, and I am happy that the Committee took the same view. Any such scheme of supply from the Great Ouse would, in my view, be costly. It certainly would have been a very much more expensive way of meeting the demands of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham than the method which the Bill proposes. It might possibly be the right way on the water facts of the situation to meet the demand of that area one day, but I would not venture to predict that. I am sure that the possibility of supply from the Great Ouse deserves to be thoroughly investigated.
The big question before the House is whether in some way the needs of these areas in North Bucks could have been

met by any different or less drastic solution than the Bill in the form in which it has emerged from the Committee and has come back to us. That is a question to which I would like to address myself for a moment. One of the possibilities—I think it is one that appeals to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe—was that the Bucks Water Board might have accepted a bulk supply from Wycombe and Marlow, and that there was no necessity, on that reasoning, for the Bucks Water Board to extend its area and to take in those territories which will still come under it, if the Bill goes through.
I and my predecessors have been inclined to look with disfavour on bulk supply arrangements unless they were inevitable. Sometimes they are necessary, but my experience generally is that they lack the flexibility that is needed to enable the best use to be made of water resources. Placing the resources upon which an undertaking depends under a single control as far as possible enables the rate of pumping to be varied or the individual sources to be rested, as required, without what might be difficult or fruitless negotiations. Furthermore, bulk supply arrangements usually involve large reservations by the supplying undertaker against maximum ultimate needs. Every undertaking looks after itself first. That is human nature, and it is as normal to water undertakings as it is to other people and bodies.
That reservation against maximum needs tends to prevent a source of water being used to the full, and it might advance unnecessarily the development of new sources. In other words, by bulk supply arrangements we do not, in the normal case, get the most economic development and use of water. That is something which both Minister and House of Commons have to keep in mind, because it is likely to be many years before we have unlimited capital resources for investment in the development of water sources. For that reason we cannot afford to waste, and to put more money, more capital, into water development than the situation really requires. It is for these reasons that when the water industry is being reorganised, as it is at present, it does not seem satisfactory that undertakings should be deliberately regrouped in such a way that major bulk supplies are made necessary if


there is the possibility, as this Bill shows there can be, of placing sources of supply and distribution in the same hands.
There was a further point of difficulty. I think it was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers), and he suggested it was not for him to answer it, but perhaps for the Chairman of the Committee. I shall, if I may, go into detail for a moment, because unless this argument is dealt with in the House it might be felt that a material point had been overlooked. The question is whether, despite what I have said in general against bulk supply being a suitable solution, in this case the circumstances were so special that the general argument ought to have been overruled. What we have to bear in mind is that it is not in the power of the High Wycombe Corporation nor of the Marlow Water Company to give unconditional bulk supplies. There are Acts of Parliament on the Statute Book which prohibit them from exporting water from the Thames catchment area. Any bulk supply agreement which they were to enter into in spite of that prohibition would be subject to special Parliamentary procedure if the Thames Conservancy objected. There is every reason to think that the Thames Conservancy would object.
It is known that the Thames Conservancy would agree to the export of water from the catchment area for a period of ten years. The Bucks Water Board would not regard that as adequate security for the very expensive scheme which would be required to put the water into supply. Moreover, what is to happen at the end of the ten years? One is gambling on the Great Ouse supply being available, and here, as Minister of Housing and Local Government, I must express to the House the deep concern I should feel if we were to be adopting this device for a ten year period with no certainty of a supply of water to the constituents of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham at the end of those ten years. So the House can see—I am sure it recognised it before my speech began—that every aspect of this matter has been probed bath by the Committee and, I hope, by myself.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely asked one or two questions arising out of the Special Report of

the Committee. I hope I shall be allowed briefly to refer to that, because the Special Report is a document which I read with the greatest interest. That Report said:
In the course of the Committee's proceedings, it became clear that only two authorities responsible for water undertakings covered by the Bills had consulted officers of the Geological Survey regarding their future water supplies. The Committee would strongly urge upon the Minister of Housing and Local Government the desirability of all local authorities taking full advantage of this valuable source of information before embarking on developments which could involve problems of water supply.
I accept all the Committee said. It surprises me that only two of the authorities had consulted the Geological Survey. Certainly my information is that water undertakers normally consult the Geological Survey. I shall investigate this further and take note of what has been said. If after further investigation it seems that the value of the Geological Survey and consulting it are not fully appreciated, I shall see what further steps I can take to that end.
The Special Report also referred to compensation, and my hon. and gallant Friend asked me to make some reference to it. The position is, as he said, that if regrouping is effected by an Order under the Water Act, 1945, the code of compensation that is laid down in the Local Government Act of 1933 applies. If, on the other hand, the regrouping is effected by Private Bill, it has been the practice of the Government to ask Parliament to provide for a more up-to-date code similar to that which was established under the Local Government Act, 1948.
I agree with the Committee that it is time that the general water code was brought into line with modern ideas on compensation, particularly as more and more Orders under the 1945 Act can be expected with the gathering momentum of regrouping. The Government have, accordingly, decided that legislation should be introduced at an early date to repeal the provisions in the 1945 Act which apply the pre-war code of compensation to Orders made under that Act; and to substitute for it a power to enable me to make regulations governing compensation, which would follow a post-war pattern.
I would add that although further amalgamations in Scotland are much less likely than on this side of the


Border, and the point is, therefore, of much less practical importance there, the legal position is virtually the same, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has asked me to say that it is proposed that the provision the Government have in mind shall extend to Scotland also.
That is all I have to say. I trust that the House will not refer the Bill back to the Committee, but will, in due course, give it a Third Reading, and send it on to another place. It is in another place, I would submit, that some of the detailed financial provisions to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe referred, may well need to be examined further.
I am sure that he will forgive me if I do not say anything more in detail about the effect of water charges on his constituents in High Wycombe. Under the provisions of the Bill, an appeal might be made to me at some stage, and, quite clearly, when the full facts are not before me, the Bill not yet having reached the Statute Book, I would not wish to prejudge the decision I might have to take then. For that reason, I beg to be excused from going into detail.
Let me say at once that I appreciate that the water charges falling on my hon. Friend's constituents in Wycombe will go up. I do not see any way of carrying out regrouping, and at the same time guaranteeing that nobody will pay more anywhere. If the fundamental task that we are assuming in regrouping is to secure that there is an adequate supply of water throughout the country, it can be done only on a share system. In the end, some people may have to pay rather more, and others may be lucky enough to pay rather less—

Mr. Ernest Popplewell: That is Socialism.

Mr. Brooke: This is the way I am seeking to administer the Water Act, and I trust that we shall not have too much Socialism brought into it, because nationalisation is really quite irrelevant to what we are discussing.

Mr. Brockway: The Minister has made a rather important statement on Government policy, and has made it at the end of a discussion upon a Private Bill, when,

I imagine, nobody would expect a pronouncement of that character to be made to the House. Would he give an opportunity later for consideration of that statement?

Mr. Brooke: I was certainly not wishing to rush the House, or to impede it in any way. The statement is one that simply cannot be implemented without legislation. What I am indicating is that, as I said, at an early date legislation should be introduced. Clearly, I cannot say what that date will be, but I know that it was a matter of some concern to the Committee that the situation seemed, shall I say, somewhat chaotic. The Committee brought this matter to the attention of the House, and the Government have taken note of it. They have said that they will, on the earliest available occasion, bring forward proposals to rectify it. I trust that I am in no way acting contrary to the traditions of the House in making that statement this evening.
Having said that, and having expressed my sympathy with all those who may be adversely affected in some way or another by the Bill, I must end by saying that, for all the work which I have done on it and for all the work the Committee has done on it, neither the Committee nor I have been able to discover any possible way of solving the water problem of the North Bucks area except on the basis of the provisions of this Bill.

Sir F. Markham: I should like, if I may, to thank the Minister and say how grateful we shall be in the Buckingham division for the assurances he has given this evening.

Mr. John Hall: While I thank my right hon. Friend very much indeed for the very clear and concise way in which he has answered the debate, may I say I am sure that he will not expect me to accept in their entirety all the arguments and views which he put forward. Indeed, he will not be surprised to learn that I still hold the view that the alternative Bill which did not come out of the Committee met all the requirements which he as Minister would like to see in a Bill of that kind, even including a supply of water to the northern area.
However, in view of my right hon. Friend's concluding remarks, when he


pointed out that there was still opportunity to consider the matter in more detail in another place, by petition or by other means, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Bill considered accordingly; to be read the Third time.

HIGHBURY HOSPITAL, NOTTINGHAM (MENTAL PATIENT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Legh.]

10.42 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel J. K. Cordeaux: It seems somewhat ironic that, so soon after such an enlightened Measure as the Mental Health Bill has been introduced, a Bill which unlocks so many doors in so many mental hospitals, which has been received with the unanimous support by all hon. Members, I should be raising on the Adjournment of the House what I feel is a rather shocking case of a mentally deficient patient who left hospital when, I suggest, he should never have been allowed to do so. The case in question is that of Mr. James A. Boulton, who used to live in my constituency and whose next-of-kin and other relatives live there now.
Mr. Boulton has been, to all intents and purposes, a mental deficient all his life. From 1928 until 1945. he was under the guardianship, first, of his mother, and, after she died, of his brother, Mr. Ernest Boulton, who drew a mental deficient's allowance for him. In 1945, Mr. Ernest Boulton, the brother, married, and he felt that he could no longer be responsible for looking after his brother. I say at once that I do not think that any criticism can be levelled at Mr. Ernest Boulton for that decision. From all my inquiries into the case, I am sure that it would be agreed by everyone that it would have been wrong for Mr. Ernest Boulton to have had his brother in the house continuously where there were young children.
From 1945 onwards, Mr. James Boulton was confined under compulsory orders in various institutions, the last of which was the Highbury Hospital in Nottingham. While he was there, during the course of last year, the Ministry of Health issued its Circular No. H.M. 58 (5), paragraph 9 of which begins as follows:
It should now be possible, as recommended in paragraphs 559–560 of the Royal Commission's Report, to terminate the compulsory powers over many patients already in mental deficiency hospitals and certified institutions who can suitably be cared for without such powers".

As a result, Mr. James Boulton's case was reviewed, and the compulsory powers over him were terminated.
Mr. Boulton thus became an informal patient. What happened was that, on 13th October, 1958, he walked out of Highbury Hospital and did not return. It is not entirely clear what happened to him in the two or three days immediately after his departure, and I must emphasise that he is a man who could not possibly have secured a job in order to support himself, nor was he capable even of looking after himself. Apparently he lived rough, slept in derelict uninhabited houses, and he was certainly seen begging at a Nottingham bus station.
In that connection, I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health to say whether, when Mr. James Boulton walked out of the hospital, he took with him any money or belongings, or whether he had absolutely nothing except the clothes in which he stood. At any rate, we know that after two or three days he arrived unexpectedly at the house of one of his brothers, not the next-of-kin Mr. Ernest Boulton of whom I spoke, but Mr. A. Boulton.
Mr. A. Boulton's wife, seeing him arrive in a pitiable and destitute condition, took him in, fed him and tried to look after him. It was a difficult task, but she did her best. For instance, besides feeding him, she bought him a razor; she supervised him when he shaved, a thing which he found very difficult to do himself, for he was always cutting himself. She tried to look after his clothes and, to show the difficult task that she had, I would say that during the two months that this lasted Mrs. Boulton had to burn ten of his shirts and replace them.
Although she did her best to look after him, she was unable to do so except during the day time. She was not physically capable of looking after him for 24 hours and, moreover, there was no room in the house for him. She therefore reported the matter at once to the local health authority, and that authority agreed to take him in at nights in the reception centre. Mrs. Boulton therefore paid for his meals, for buying him such things as this razor, and she also paid his bus fare every day to and from the reception centre.
Mrs. Boulton was in an unfortunate position because Mr. James Boulton was


not actually living in the house and she could therefore get no assistance in any way from the National Assistance Board. Needless to say, when the local health authority was informed about this, it immediately took steps. It got in touch immediately with the Highbury Hospital from which Mr. Boulton had walked out, and a very dusty answer the authority got from that hospital. It said that it was considered that Mr. Boulton had—and I quote—
discharged himself against medical advice.
It said that his bed had been filled, and apparently that was the end of it. In fact, the hospital was not prepared to take him back.
The local health authority then tried several mental hospitals in the district, but none of them could take hint in. The authority then took the following action. On 22nd October the mental health officer of the local health authority informed the regional hospital board of what had happened, and a week later, on 29th October, the local health authority sent an official letter to the regional hospital board drawing attention to the need for accommodation for Mr. Boulton. Five days later, on 11th November, the regional hospital board sent a formal reply.
A week later, on 10th November, a further letter was sent from the local health authority to the regional hospital board in which these words were used:
It is imperative that a bed be provided.
Two days later a reply from the regional hospital board said it was regretted that there was no vacancy. The following day the local health authority sent a further letter to the regional hospital board asking for immediate admission for Mr. Boulton.
Six days later, on 19th November, the regional hospital board replied that it regretted that it was unable to find a vacancy. The following day the local health authority wrote another official letter using the words "It is imperative." So far as I can gather, there was no reply at all from the regional hospital board for another three weeks to this further urgent request. On 12th December the local health authority sent another letter suggesting that the matter would probably be raised in Parliament. As a result of tins, after nothing had happened for two

months, a bed was found within 48 hours in the Royal Victoria Hospital, Mansfield.
I would ask my hon. Friend at this point whether Mr. Boulton is now in the Royal Victoria Hospital, Mansfield, once more under a compulsory order. Whether he is or whether he is not, I say definitely that from what I know of the case, although I have no medical qualifications whatever, I am absolutely convinced that the compulsory order never should have been removed from him.
I will summarise the criticisms that I make against the authorities concerned. I have three main criticisms to make against the authorities of Highbury Hospital. First, I suggest that they failed entirely to comply with paragraph 9 of Circular No. H.M. 58 (5), which reads:
It should now he possible, as recommended in paras. 559–560 of the Royal Commission's report, to terminate the compulsory powers over many patients already in mental deficiency hospitals and certified institutions who can be suitably cared for without such powers. Medical superintendents (or the appropriate medical officer when the superintendent is not medical) should he asked to undertake such a review as soon as possible, taking into account the attitude of the patient's relatives and the home circumstances as well as the attitude of the patient. This may require consultation with local health authorities, who are being asked to co-operate in the provision of reports on home circumstances when necessary.
Obviously that requirement was not complied with. If it had been, they would have learned that there was no possibility of Mr. James Boulton being taken care of by anybody in an adequate manner when he left.
The second criticism that I make about the hospital authorities is their failure to carry out the standard practice recommended in paragraph 16 of the circular, which reads:
Although formal notifications of discharge from hospital of patients not subject to detention need not be regarded as a statutory requirement, the standard practice should be to send informal notification to the local health authority of the area in which the patient is going to live, the general practitioner who will be providing general medical service for the patient after discharge, and the patient's nearest relative…In most cases they should have been consulted beforehand about the arrangements for the patient's after-care.
That requirement was obviously disregarded.
When I first raised this point with my hon. Friend it was suggested that


probably the reason why the hospital authorities did not inform the next-of-kin as they were supposed to do was that the next-of-kin had not been in the habit of visiting Mr. James Boulton when in hospital and it was not, therefore, really worth while telling them. That being the case, it was surely the strongest evidence that one could have that there was nobody who was likely to be able to look after Mr. Boulton if he left hospital.
It was also suggested that the reason the local health authority in Nottingham was not informed was that the hospital authorities did not know, when Mr. Boulton walked out of the hospital, where he was likely to live. Where anybody could expect him to go except to Nottingham, where the hospital was and where he had always lived before living in institutions, I do not know.
Paragraph 16 of the circular certainly says that, although there is no statutory requirement for formal notification to be given to the local health authority of the place where a patient will reside, it is standard practice, and I suggest that if ever there was a case where it was essential to adopt that standard practice it was this case.
The third criticism I wish to make about the behaviour of the hospital is that when it realised the blunder it had made it should have taken Mr. Boulton back into the hospital at once. It is quite fantastic that it should have made the reply that Mr. Boulton had discharged himself against medical advice and that the bed was filled and the hospital could not, or would not, take him back. We know that if a court order is made in the case of a mentally deficient person he has to be taken in, and a bed has to be found for him. Orders are made in exceptional cases, and I suggest that no case could be more exceptional than the one I am now raising.
That brings me to the criticism of the regional hospital board. I suggest that when the board realised what a blunder the hospital had made it should have seen that a bed was provided somewhere in the region at once, and I would say that the board could also have done so if it had wanted, because if a court order had been made it would have had to do so. The fact that a bed was eventually provided after two months, when

it began to get round that the matter might be raised in Parliament, suggests that the effort could have been made very much sooner.
Finally, I want to make a general criticism. It must have been obvious to anybody, let alone a doctor, that poor Mr. Boulton could not possibly have got a job in order to support himself. It must have been known quite as well to the hospital as to other people that he could not even look after himself. He was 59 years old; of the last 30 years he had spent 17 under the guardianship of relations, and for the last 13 years he had been compulsorily confined in institutions. He was described in one of the letters that I have received from the medical authorities as a low-grade imbecile. There was no suggestion of any sort that anybody would—or perhaps I should say "could"—look after him.
What on earth did the hospital authorities think would happen to that unfortunate man when he walked out? Did they think it did not matter what happened? Did not they care what happened to him? Did they just think it was not their responsibility, and that they therefore did not need to bother about it?
I suggest that the behaviour of the hospital authorities at Highbury Hospital was shockingly inefficient, and also—no doubt quite unintentionally—callous. I also think it lamentable that the regional hospital authority did nothing for a long period to rectify the deplorable results of the hospital's action, or inaction. I can only say, in conclusion, that I hope that this tragic story will produce some good result, if my hon. Friend can assure me that such a thing is never likely to happen again.

11.0 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Richard Thompson): My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central (Lieut.-Col. Cordeaux) has not left me all the time that I could wish in which to reply to his case, but I will do so as quickly as I can. He made a number of references to the Report of the Royal Commission on the Law Relating to Mental Illness and Mental Deficiency.


We cannot discuss this case properly without bearing in mind one of that Commission's most important recommendations. It said:
We consider compulsion and detention quite unnecessary for a large number, probably the great majority, of the patients at present cared for in mental deficiency hospitals, most of whom are childlike and prepared to accept whatever arrangements are made for them.
So it was that the Commission recommended that mental defectives should be admitted informally in future and compulsory powers over those already in mental deficiency hospitals should be terminated whenever a patient could remain in hospital on an informal basis.
In the light of this, my right hon. and learned Friend, with I think wide public and Parliamentary approval, accepted these recommendations. In January, 1958, he requested medical superintendents of mental deficiency hospitals to review all patients to decide whether they could remain in hospital without liability to detention or whether, in the interests of the patient and of the public, compulsory detention should continue. That, of course, is the circular to which my hon. and gallant Friend has referred. I need hardly add that potentially dangerous or violent patients would naturally continue to be under detention.
At Highbury Hospital, following this review, the medical superintendent recommended that Mr. Boulton be discharged from compulsory detention. He is aged 58, he has been under supervision or guardianship since boyhood, but he has actually been in hospital since 1945. l know that that is a long period of years but, in relation to his age, it is the smaller part of his life.
My hon. and gallant Friend suggested that Mr. Boulton perhaps could not safely be left alone with small children. That reference is probably founded on two incidents which are thought to have occurred in 1925 and 1932, but neither of them was the subject of police proceedings and I must point out that for 13 years after the second incident, if indeed it occurred at all, Mr. Boulton lived at home with his mother and brother without any suggestion being made that he was dangerous to the public. Surely it would have been wrong for the medical superintendent in 1958 to continue his compulsory detention.
Criticism of the medical superintendent for failure to consider the attitude of relatives and the home circumstances was made by my hon. and gallant Friend. There is a distinction here between discharging a patient and ending compulsory detention where it is unlikely that a patient will leave hospital. In this case, the medical superintendent had no reason to think that the patient would leave hospital when compulsory detention ended. In fact, he did not do so for seven months, and I must point out that there are large numbers of mentally deficient patients in the country who are no longer subject to compulsory detention but who remain in hospital on a voluntary, informal basis.
After these seven months, during which he continued to remain at the hospital voluntarily, on 13th October, suddenly and without warning, and with £2 in his pocket, Mr. Boulton left hospital with another patient who had also just been discharged from compulsory detention. There is no doubt that the departure of Mr. Boulton, who up to then had been content to remain in hospital, was clearly instigated by the second patient. I add that that second patient has lived outside in the community ever since, without any difficulty of which I am aware.
Mr. Boulton's brother, as the next-of-kin, should have been notified. I accept that. But the failure of the medical superintendent in that respect, looking back on the thing, is understandable, because the brother, perhaps for good reasons, had never shown any interest in the patient and had never visited him. Certainly it is normal in such circumstances for the medical officer of health to be notified, but in this case the medical superintendent did not know where Mr. Boulton had gone. He just walked out of the hospital without any notice at all. He could have gone somewhere in the county. He might have gone to the City of Nottingham itself, or to some other administrative area.
Nevertheless, I am bound to say that it would have been advisable to notify the medical officer of health of the City of Nottingham, because, as my hon. and gallant Friend has pointed out, Nottingham was Mr. Boulton's only known address before his admission some 13 years earlier. I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that that procedure will be closely followed in future.
To start with, Mr. Boulton spent his nights at a reception centre run by the Nottingham Council and had meals with his sister-in-law. For the reasons which my hon. and gallant Friend gave, that was clearly unsatisfactory. The council requested the regional board to re-admit him, and that is where the difficulty arose. The vacancy at Highbury Hospital had since been filled and it was impossible to admit even one more patient. The reason was that the appropriate male accommodation there was authorised for 28 beds and there were already 40 male beds in use. With that degree of overcrowding it was not possible to re-admit him to Highbury. Elsewhere in the region, pressure on that kind of accommodation was also very great.
So it was that from 27th November Mr. Boulton stayed at the reception centre day and night. There was eventually a vacancy created at Victoria Hospital, Mansfield, on 15th December. Mr. Boulton was admitted there a few days later under compulsory powers and is now a compulsory patient.
The delay from October to the middle of December was not due to unwillingness or to the slackness of the regional board in the admission of the patient. It was a question of priority between him and other urgent cases. When a bed was found, it was only by utilising a bed normally used for short-term admissions, and that was possible only when one of the short-term admissions came to an end. The possibility of Parliamentary reference to this case did not affect the admission, although the two happened to coincide rather closely.
Subsequent events have shown that Mr. Boulton cannot look after himself outside, or be relied upon to stay in a

hospital voluntarily. He is not a violent man, but I would say that he was incapable of coping with life outside. His departure could not reasonably have been foreseen by the medical superintendent when it was recommended that he should become an informal patient.
If compulsory detention were continued in every case where the slightest risk existed of a patient leaving hospital against medical advice, we should never make any progress in the direction we want to go and which was indicated by the Royal Commission. Clearly no risks can be taken where a patient is believed to be dangerous, but there are balances in other cases which have to be weighed in favour of the liberty of the individual and the ending of compulsory detention.
This occurrence, unfortunate as it undoubtedly was, gives no ground for questioning the wisdom of the arrangements for enabling mental defectives to be in hospital as informal patients. These arrangements are, in general, working well, and as far as I can trace my Department has not had brought to its notice, in the 14 months since they were introduced, any case comparable with that which has been the subject of the debate. I should not want it to be thought that any general abuse was taking place. I have every reason to believe that this is an isolated case.
I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will accept the assurance which I have given that the recommendation contained in the circular as to the precise procedure to be followed when one of these cases arises will be followed.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Eleven o'clock.